The Bulletstorm Controversy
- Thread starter Mark J Kline
- Start date
A good article, and I understand you were being hypothetical about a game with graphical sexual scenes and/or rape, but I just want to point out that Bulletstorm has neither of these.
I agree with the fact that too much gaming can have some sort of mental impact on people (my younger siblings tend to be irritable when they have been playing for hours....not because of the video game itself but because they played for hours)....but here is a question that probably a lot of people asked....if videogames are the cause of violence and rape and anything else related, what was the cause of those things before videogames were created? what were the triggers that caused people to commit these acts before videogames?.....people dont become murders from nothing just because of videogames....the movie American Psycho comes to mind how the whole movie was just a dream, a pre-meditated act that took a long time to think up because of the things that were happening to him and definitely not because he played a game like bulletstorm for a few hours.
This seems like another 'band wagon' Jack Thompson style of getting attention, which as you rightly stated "The only bad publicity is no publicity".
The whole thing about violent comments is a far FAR cry from ACTUAL violence; its like if someone cuts you up on the road and you shout at them, that doesn't mean your going to ram them off the road and beat them up. Again its all to give a bad impression on a media form that some people are lead to believe is bad and harmful to people & especially kids; and won't someone please think of the children!!
The argument of that parent that games are designed to be addictive is somewhat true but you could say the same for drugs, alchol and even regular food (chocolate for example) to some extent as they all have aspects to them that can be addicitve either through chemical or physcological dependence; its the job of the parent to control the exposure to these elements so that the chances of getting addicted are reduced.
Could video games effect people who are already imbalanced? Yeah I guess it could; but the fact of the matter is that they are already inclinded to act on their impulses - its not like a game could convince a 'normal' well balanced individual to commit crimes / murder / violence simply because they were shown it in a game and "hey, it looked cool"... most sane people know the difference between right and wrong and more importantly the difference between fantasy and reality.
If anything someone who is 'interested' in this sort of activity could quite as easily be sedated or satisfied by the experiances they gain from a game rather than being forced to act in real life because they don't have any alternative. Alot of people would play CoD or a similar shooter when they've had a bad day to blow off some steam; if they lacked that outlet they could vent that anger on a friend, loved one or drink their problems away; at least video games are a far healthier alternative for everyone.
At the end of the day its just another sad person who is looking for an excuse to make a big scene about something that is already and fairly easily demonised. Given a few years the current generation who would have grown up with video games will take over and the fear will be gone and these vein attempts to create PR will be laughed at... or at least I hope that day will come.
The whole thing about violent comments is a far FAR cry from ACTUAL violence; its like if someone cuts you up on the road and you shout at them, that doesn't mean your going to ram them off the road and beat them up. Again its all to give a bad impression on a media form that some people are lead to believe is bad and harmful to people & especially kids; and won't someone please think of the children!!
The argument of that parent that games are designed to be addictive is somewhat true but you could say the same for drugs, alchol and even regular food (chocolate for example) to some extent as they all have aspects to them that can be addicitve either through chemical or physcological dependence; its the job of the parent to control the exposure to these elements so that the chances of getting addicted are reduced.
Could video games effect people who are already imbalanced? Yeah I guess it could; but the fact of the matter is that they are already inclinded to act on their impulses - its not like a game could convince a 'normal' well balanced individual to commit crimes / murder / violence simply because they were shown it in a game and "hey, it looked cool"... most sane people know the difference between right and wrong and more importantly the difference between fantasy and reality.
If anything someone who is 'interested' in this sort of activity could quite as easily be sedated or satisfied by the experiances they gain from a game rather than being forced to act in real life because they don't have any alternative. Alot of people would play CoD or a similar shooter when they've had a bad day to blow off some steam; if they lacked that outlet they could vent that anger on a friend, loved one or drink their problems away; at least video games are a far healthier alternative for everyone.
At the end of the day its just another sad person who is looking for an excuse to make a big scene about something that is already and fairly easily demonised. Given a few years the current generation who would have grown up with video games will take over and the fear will be gone and these vein attempts to create PR will be laughed at... or at least I hope that day will come.
It's not about the game being the root cause of an increase in violent behaviour and encouragement for committing violent acts. It's more like positive reinforcement. An individual may act out his violent fantasies in the game before acting them out in the real world. Similar in a way to how somebody might get drunk or tipsy before they feel 'ready' to commit a crime or act of violence. As Dr. Mark said, it's like 'psyching' yourself up.Badwolf14 said:
Another thoughtful article, but i feel it digressed a bit from the statement "Videogames cause and encourage rape and violent behaviour" (which should probably be crystalised as *sexual* violent behaviour) to "parents who are irresponsible with how their children and young ones play video games to an excessive extent may cause them to develop mental health issues down the road". I think that is a topic for another time, but one well worth investigating. Video game marketing is done in a way to appeal to youngsters, and the nature of certain games keeps them hooked in a skinner box style mechanism, as pointed out by Extra Credits. Even something as simple as a levelling up system can keep them addicted.
You made a very interesting remark at the end about video game addiction and alcohol and tobacco companies. Should video games contain a similar warning of "this game may cause addiction" on the front of the cover? Possibly, might it might feel a bit heavy handed. We know warnings on the front of cigarette packets are only there for legal reasons and that people who choose to smoke or drink will do so regardless of any warnings, so putting a warning on the box may not be all that helpful in the long run. I think a good idea would be to place an insert in or on every box with some brief information suggesting a healthy guideline for how much someone should play for, more information on the importance of taking a break every hour or so, some light warnings on addiction and so on.
A very good and thoughtful article.
My two cents on sex scenes in video games - we all need fantasy in our life and this can sometimes trip that lever. There remains, a huge disconnect though between fantasy and reality - even for some deeply sick people.
My two cents on sex scenes in video games - we all need fantasy in our life and this can sometimes trip that lever. There remains, a huge disconnect though between fantasy and reality - even for some deeply sick people.
A similar thing happened to Penny Bain, a 'commentator and researcher' who was brought in by a website to give 'documented proof' that the website newgrounds.com was evil, had a negative impact on kids, warped their little minds, blah, blah, blah.
The reaction from the newgrounds community was swift and decisive. While some of the responses were typical kid angst, most of them were actually very well thought out and eloquently spoken. About a year after this flap, the website shut down.
http://www.google.com/#q=Penny+Bain+newgrounds&hl=en&prmd=ivnso&ei=dX5mTYTeFIO78gbZ15SKCw&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.1,or.&fp=3f40f95b1b9c7c0d
The reaction from the newgrounds community was swift and decisive. While some of the responses were typical kid angst, most of them were actually very well thought out and eloquently spoken. About a year after this flap, the website shut down.
http://www.google.com/#q=Penny+Bain+newgrounds&hl=en&prmd=ivnso&ei=dX5mTYTeFIO78gbZ15SKCw&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.1,or.&fp=3f40f95b1b9c7c0d
But you quoted yourself
That they cause....now I know they aren't the cause, and that yea they give a more visual representation of what they would want to do (like in GTA going on a random killing spree shooting anything that moves) but in a way it sort of goes back to my original question....what about before videogames? like right now they have something to use as a scapegoat but what about before?...i guess im just pointing out how shallow their argument seems to me since videogames haven't been around that long and they are using it as a reason for the cause and encouragement of violence even though violence has been around for a very long timeGralian said:
thankyou for a refreshingly neutral look at a touchy subject matter. I agree that some people who play games to much can take it to far, but my big fear is that gaming itself is not being treaeted as a media but a drug (which is seriously not cool)and has only been strngthened in my mind by your comparison to the alcohol and tabacoo companies
If this is true then perhaps we simply need to slap a disclaimer sticker on the disc case and all their problems go away.
"Warning: Playing this game may cause a rise in violence and tendancy to rape women. Please consult your doctor before gaming."
It worked for the alcohol and tobacco industry :/
If i had to venture a guess, i would say it's down to how society has evolved through shedding of neo-conservative values. Let me explain. Do you remember the old image of a "happy family", the housewife, the good kids, the familyman - this idyllic image of a "perfect, well-behaved family"? Think of 1960's americana, or even the Nazi ideal of Volksgemeinschaft. As we have, as a society, become more liberal and people can say what they think and do what they like, these values have been shed. Video games happened to rise to prominence during this era of liberation (think the early days of the arcades) and this has only gone on the rise. People used to consider it avant garde to include too much violence, swearing, scenes of horror or sexual gratuity in video games. Now we have all those things because society is liberal - no more false "perfect happy family" image. There is a lot more freedom, and video games influence what we do with that freedom. Society is no longer constrained and i think the idea here is that video games acts as a vehicle to explore this new found freedom by presenting violent and offensive themes for the individual to explore, which will affect how they are in the real world. Someone who just got off a five hour marathon of Doom is likely to be more irritable and aggressive, for example. That's how i understand Lieberman's position, anyway.Badwolf14 said:
Are you sure about that? I think even early black and white movies depicting violence must have have reinforced other violent behaviour in some way. Let's not forget early literature. Books, poetry, plays all had the power to move people. I wouldn't be surprised if people who has seen Shakespeare's "Hamlet" felt reinforcement for violence in defending one's honour, for example. Go back even further,; hasn't violence always been celebrated as a means of solving disputes? Though we aren't talking about criminal acts per se, i'm sure many issues back in Roman or Medieval times were solved at the business end of the sword, and that mentality only served to encourage perpetuating itself.
Goddamnit, this again?!
Look, I already stated in the previous article that violent games do not make people violent.
I have been playing violent videogames since I was six or seven years old. I have beaten every single mainstream MK game since the first one entered my home. I have played GTA's Vice City to Lost and the Damned with no side effects, and every single M rated FPS that I have played was a huge enjoyment for me.
And yet, the only violent thing that I have done was knock my older brother out for destroying my PS2 back in '04. Does that make me a volitile, unstable criminal with nothing but schizophrnia and psychotic behavior as a friend? NO! I'm a caring person who has no inclination to commit even the pettiest of crimes.
I'm sick of this whole controversy in particular to be honest. Great article though Mark. You do make a few valid points.
Look, I already stated in the previous article that violent games do not make people violent.
I have been playing violent videogames since I was six or seven years old. I have beaten every single mainstream MK game since the first one entered my home. I have played GTA's Vice City to Lost and the Damned with no side effects, and every single M rated FPS that I have played was a huge enjoyment for me.
And yet, the only violent thing that I have done was knock my older brother out for destroying my PS2 back in '04. Does that make me a volitile, unstable criminal with nothing but schizophrnia and psychotic behavior as a friend? NO! I'm a caring person who has no inclination to commit even the pettiest of crimes.
I'm sick of this whole controversy in particular to be honest. Great article though Mark. You do make a few valid points.
I was really looking forward to you waying in on this issue, but I wish you did a bit more research. Bulletstorm, although extremely violent, only has sexual content in the form of innuendo, such as killing multiple guys at once is called "gang bang". Fox News was claiming that the simple utterance of the phrase gang bang would lead to more rape. I really feel that games shouldn't allow you to do things like rape, but the problem here is that Dr. Liebeirman out right lied about a known connection. Sure theirs nothing wrong with treating games with a little skepticism for their potential negative effects, but no self respecting psychologist should go about that with baseless assumptions and fear mongering, don't you think. Like you said that is just a tool to sell books then to look out for the well being of todays youth.
There is a causal relationship to Madison Garden Boxing and Crime rates; after a night of boxing is over crime rates spike up 8% from normal.
If a GTA game comes out or bullet storm came out; did crime rates increase?
I wouldn't be surprised if they dropped.
Same can be said about a lot of sports; however, when a video game causes a lot of rage among fans, we spam hate mail and do little else.
If they are going to link video game to sex and rape they are going to need to back it up instead of inciting angst from the community; the main weakness that we have against the media is that they get a lot more practice trolling people: they are paid to do it. Our grammatically horrible trolling skillz are laughing fodder for them.
If a GTA game comes out or bullet storm came out; did crime rates increase?
I wouldn't be surprised if they dropped.
Same can be said about a lot of sports; however, when a video game causes a lot of rage among fans, we spam hate mail and do little else.
If they are going to link video game to sex and rape they are going to need to back it up instead of inciting angst from the community; the main weakness that we have against the media is that they get a lot more practice trolling people: they are paid to do it. Our grammatically horrible trolling skillz are laughing fodder for them.
1. I find this "media psychiatrist's" reaction to be barely on this side of delusional. She's equivocating "violent" (as in physical, destructive violence) with "violent" (as in sudden and intense). The two are not the same, but she's clearly taking advantage of the common word choice.Mark J Kline said:
And she's doing it to paint this picture that she is a victim of the very same "violence" she's speaking out against. Why? Simply because, in the media (The First Circuit Court of Public Opinion), you can never argue with the victim. If a victim says it happened like so, his/her word is irrefutable, even if no substantial evidence is offered.
2. The response of the gamers did lack maturity and focus. It was little more than a poorly-directed ad hominem. Fight the issue, not the person. And keep it "in the ring," so to speak. Write to the news outlet she uses to spout this stuff. Post it in online discussions of the topic. Don't drag the fight to an unrelated location. (This is hard to do, especially with the 'hit and run' tactics of these types, spouting an opinion and leaving no centralized forum for rebuttal).
3. 1 + 2 = Communication breakdown. Until we can create an organized, common forum on which both sides are able to state their respective cases, with a moderator keeping things civil, not much is going to come from these exchanges. The sides aren't working from uniform "rules of engagement," and neither is interested in hearing the other side at all. If you can't participate in a productive discussion, don't discuss it (yet).
4. I think you're at least partially right that game developers need to be aware of the impact their medium can have on young minds... but no more than any other entertainment medium. In the end, the amount of time the child spends on TV, internet, video games, or any other passive-entertainment activity can be largely controlled by the parents. How much power, really, does a game company have to decide how long a child plays its game? Certainly not nearly as much as the parent.
All the gaming industry can do is inform, inform, inform. If that information isn't used, I think their hands are clean of any problem. What I don't want to see is the video game industry alone having to take this responsibility--TV and music are omnipresent in our society as well, and they share equal burden (if any) in making sure parents know the dangers of "over-entertainment" to the minds of their young children.
5. None of the studies have really done a good job of determining whether violent video games are a source of violent behavior, or just a channel for extant behaviors to express themselves. There's no easy way to make that distinction, either... but that means we shouldn't place the burden of proof on only one side.
Let's say Bob plays a "bad" game and then commits some kind of crime. Okay.
a) How can we say, with any certainty, that Bob wouldn't have committed the crime without this game's influence? What if, instead of overly-sexual video games, Bob wrote erotic fan fiction based on his favorite cartoon? Wouldn't that also provide fuel for these destructive impulses?
b) How can we say, with any certainty, that the game had no impact on Bob's commission of the crime? It could be that the game gave him an idea on how to commit the crime, and that idea gave him the confidence to actually go through with it. It could be that Bob's gaming habits have made him anti-social, and perhaps less likely to consider the negative impact of his actions on those around him.
I find it some what annoying you compared the video game industry to big tobacco and alcohol. Its better to compare them to TV and Print media. Do Cable companies have a requirement to tell there customers that watching TV for 8 hours a day can cause back pain, or even lead you to becoming obese? No they dont. At a certain point people need to wake up and make decisions themselves. With respect to kids, eventually they will realize that they cannot play games all day. Such things just come with maturity.
Its been said time and time again, but supervision over what video games a kid plays is a parents responsibility. My parents didnt get me a video game console until I was 10. Due to this I had plenty of time to develop without the influence of games. Parents just need to say 'no' if they dont approve of something there kid is doing.
On a final note, I do agree with the fact that if games really did make people physically violent on the scale that fox news claims, gamers would have taken action into there hands a long time ago. Also while were on this topic of, "does simulating something violent, make you more likely to abuse it?". I pose this argument to guns. People that shoot guns, are surly more likely to go on a shooting spree right? No of course not.
So if you plan to ban / regulate violent video games, you sure as hell need to make sure you ban / regulate ACTUAL WEAPONS first.
Its been said time and time again, but supervision over what video games a kid plays is a parents responsibility. My parents didnt get me a video game console until I was 10. Due to this I had plenty of time to develop without the influence of games. Parents just need to say 'no' if they dont approve of something there kid is doing.
On a final note, I do agree with the fact that if games really did make people physically violent on the scale that fox news claims, gamers would have taken action into there hands a long time ago. Also while were on this topic of, "does simulating something violent, make you more likely to abuse it?". I pose this argument to guns. People that shoot guns, are surly more likely to go on a shooting spree right? No of course not.
So if you plan to ban / regulate violent video games, you sure as hell need to make sure you ban / regulate ACTUAL WEAPONS first.
I would recommend reading Mr. Walkers excellent coverage of this whole fiasco over at Rock, Paper, Shotgun [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/fox-news/] for some perspective on the Fox news article that posed the question in the first place.
It's an interesting tale of misquoting, rejection of facts and the lack of evidence that Carole Lieberman finally tried to make good on. With little luck one might add.
It's an interesting tale of misquoting, rejection of facts and the lack of evidence that Carole Lieberman finally tried to make good on. With little luck one might add.
I agree with the majority of the points that you've made, and not only the ones that confirm my own world view. I agree that the effects of video games should be studied. But I feel that the trap that doctors like Lieberman fall into is to make up their mind, perhaps even before they've undergone any actual research. This results in anything from skewed research towards their own ends, even to outright lies (Which I think is even more reprehensible than her portrayal of videogames, that she would ignore any facts and statistics that don't help her cause).
But perhaps a greater inquest into accountability would be necessary. Consider, were Scorsese and Foster responsible for John Hinkley Jr.'s actions? Were Doom or Metallica responsible for the actions that occured at Columbine. And though these might be slightly extreme examples, then how about this? Is FOX news responsible for the actions of the Tea Party?
Actually, thinking about that last one, maybe they are, at least to a certain extent. But a line should be drawn as to which point the influence ends and an individual becomes responsible for their own actions.
But perhaps a greater inquest into accountability would be necessary. Consider, were Scorsese and Foster responsible for John Hinkley Jr.'s actions? Were Doom or Metallica responsible for the actions that occured at Columbine. And though these might be slightly extreme examples, then how about this? Is FOX news responsible for the actions of the Tea Party?
Actually, thinking about that last one, maybe they are, at least to a certain extent. But a line should be drawn as to which point the influence ends and an individual becomes responsible for their own actions.
I think it would be fair to have a disclaimer, at list with more maturely rated games, that it is not intended for young children. The only question is: How many people actually look at the inserts rather than throw them out with the other ads? I know I'm guilty of not even glancing over the stuff to see what it's about and only gloss over the instruction booklet. Perhaps if the warnings and disclaimers were put into the game itself, but that could cause its own lashing out.Gralian said:
I still choose to stick with my assertion that her title as "Media Psychiatrist" is a cover name for "Spin Doctor" since her opinions and and lack of solid and relevant proof lend to such a term.