Research Finds Negative Effects in Violent Videogames
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Evidence, eh? Well, I am not - strictly speaking - a scientist. That much is obvious. My evidence is therefore not a study that would be mentioned at a gaming forum. So, my evidence is from observations that I have been taking in steadily for years. Each time I see something IN the gaming news, and believe me I have tried to keep an eye out, I look into it all serious-like and...get very disappointed. Because they've been attacking this thing for about as long as I can remember and that's all the way back into the first Mortal Kombat, when I was a child.Katatori-kun said:
But what I've seen is essentially three-fold. The first and most obvious is that in all this time, no connecting proof - no real truth - has actually said that video games do MAKE you do stuff. If that were at all true, there would be a SOPA-level act to heavily-regular it. It would certainly be more in the news, more heavily-debated than now, etc. This has not happened, and it has not happened because I began to notice the pattern that I did. I studied THEIR STUDIES to try and figure out "Okay, why DIDN'T it prove anything?". I had always seen games - including violent games - as relaxing. Might get riled up and angry if you lose, but you don't KILL people over it. The thing that I came up with was that it's not really strong enough. It's smoke from the fire, and we are that fire.
So, the first thing is the non-proving-ness. The next, I mentioned already. I've observed that game playing in or out of the violence media is not an evil place. YOu HAVE assholes who game, people who shout profanities, but that is because they are indeed assholes and this is how they enjoy themselves. People who cuss others out in multi-player are doing so because they see no consequence and therefore let go. They are not holding back and this is what makes them feel good. It's a shitty way to do so, but it's not because they are violent and liable to bite your ear off. Most people would be shocked if...after cussing me out...I showed up on their doorstep. They wouldn't know WHAT to do. Even if they DID try something violent, it would be out of fear because it would mean consequences from the internet or something.
The third thing is simply a case test of looking around and seeing how often violence that might have something to do with a video game or ANY violent media actually happens. One of the reasons the whole notion is treated with disbelief is because there isn't even much of it to go on. There was a joke video once about "What if Jack Thompson was right?", amusingly-depicting the kind of world where gamers are suddenly up in arms because of their violent media. A clever jest, but it has a very relevant point: Where the hell are all the media-influenced psychopaths? If violent games make violent people, then shouldn't there be a millions of 'em raised on Battlefront, CoD, Fallout, Skyrim, Duke Nukem, Halo, and on and on and on and on? There is ALOT out there, so much that any REAL concern should be way more obvious by now. Seriously, how long has Id Software been in business? How long have we been shooting zombies, demons, and spider-brains? If there was ever a beginning, the pure sign of aggression, that was it.
Because the research has been little more than a footnote, proving nothing of real merit...
Because these games were designed to make people relax, unwind, and feel better...
Because that epidemic of media-controlled monsters just hasn't happened...
...what ELSE would you want me to say? I can squint and poke and prod and fuss about, but I'm not going to FIND anything.
It isn't there.
Okay I'm going to break this down into a list of claims and evaluate the validity (from my view point).
One: Long term exposure to violent video games increase aggressive behavior.
Okay, well lets just forget the fact that three days is not long term, in fact since it is only twenty minutes a day, this is actually less exposure than other studies on violent video games. As for increasing aggressive behavior, I think we have already proven that video games in general increase aggressiveness on a short term basis. This study however, didn't actually manage to prove aggressive behavior, only a tendency to believe others will react violently.
Two: Effects of violent video games are cumulative.
Not really even sure how they came to this assumption. There is nothing in that article that proves anything of the sort, with the possible exception of the victory excitement. As for the cumulative effect, unless they do this study with a large enough sample size and over a significant time frame, I have to call bull excrement on this as well.
The only thing they show with this research is that people who have recently played violent video games have a tendency to believe that another person will react violently. I did not see any evidence leading to the conclusions they have given.
Out of curiosity did anyone find a link to the actual research paper? I would like to see if this was paraphrased poorly or if they really published such shoddy experimentation.
One: Long term exposure to violent video games increase aggressive behavior.
Okay, well lets just forget the fact that three days is not long term, in fact since it is only twenty minutes a day, this is actually less exposure than other studies on violent video games. As for increasing aggressive behavior, I think we have already proven that video games in general increase aggressiveness on a short term basis. This study however, didn't actually manage to prove aggressive behavior, only a tendency to believe others will react violently.
Two: Effects of violent video games are cumulative.
Not really even sure how they came to this assumption. There is nothing in that article that proves anything of the sort, with the possible exception of the victory excitement. As for the cumulative effect, unless they do this study with a large enough sample size and over a significant time frame, I have to call bull excrement on this as well.
The only thing they show with this research is that people who have recently played violent video games have a tendency to believe that another person will react violently. I did not see any evidence leading to the conclusions they have given.
Out of curiosity did anyone find a link to the actual research paper? I would like to see if this was paraphrased poorly or if they really published such shoddy experimentation.
Which is not a bad thing at all, because the Wii U has some nice potential, but needs initial success.Josh12345 said:
And if it is true they can be "cured" by playing such games, well, crisis averted! if not? well... lets just not rely on that longshot to solve the problem.
Who does that n00b fag think he is? I feel like calling an airstrike on his casual arse. After seeing his mother 
Woah, what did I just say? It must have been all those violent video games I play. Just ignore me, I need to go lie down.
Woah, what did I just say? It must have been all those violent video games I play. Just ignore me, I need to go lie down.
Yeah, I believe it. I've noticed similar effects in myself. Being engaged in something enjoyable and violent does make me feel more aggressive, and I tend to have more aggressive thoughts. Of course, when I watch something romantic on TV, I start to feel more romantic. Depressing movies make me feel melancholy, and funny movies make me feel like cracking jokes.
What you have to realize is that the effect these scientists have observed IS real, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with their methods or their theory.
What IS wrong is saying that this is proof that people playing violent video games will cause them to do harm to others, which is a bit like saying romantic movies cause unwanted pregnancies, or that comedies are responsible for bad puns.
What you have to realize is that the effect these scientists have observed IS real, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with their methods or their theory.
What IS wrong is saying that this is proof that people playing violent video games will cause them to do harm to others, which is a bit like saying romantic movies cause unwanted pregnancies, or that comedies are responsible for bad puns.
Yes, I know not to take any of this personally, and I understand if you're frustrated about kneejerk reactions. For myself, I have been trying to look into this in my own fashion because it is a thing that I enjoy and wouldn't want to see it unduly taking heat for what isn't its fault. You can blame guns for gun violence. They're built for that. Games...not so much. Even as a kid reading that article, my first reaction is "Aw, come on! Mortal Kombat is FUN!". Fun and entertainment is a difficult thing to examine sometimes, especially when you get some rather sick people out there. Nevertheless, I want to know.Katatori-kun said:
I don't simply have an opinion. I feel that I'm qualified to comment because I did more than react. I know the good feeling of a game well-played, and I don't think that makes you psyched to do something like kill. I was on Swtor today and I single-handedly stormed a palace and killed a would-be king. It was not only a good battle, it was a GREAT battle. A challenge to even get at him because of his defenses, and then once they were worn down...to take care of him personally. I play an assassin on this game, and I know for a FACT that I am someone whose rage and anger could probably do serious damage. But I don't feel inclined to butcher some people. I'm in a good mood from that. Not good and violent, but good and cheerful. This is what I feel is the natural gamer state. This is why I have to look into these reports and see if they come away with anything of merit.
But therein lies the disappointment. I've been seeing this for YEARS, for most of my life, and I know it goes further back with the question of television and music. "Is media brainwashing our teens?" With as many times as we've come to this and come back with nothing, I believe the negative has been proven. There was one class I had in college that benefits this kind of discussion: Media Psychology. We focused on television, but all the points still stand. There is quite alot that media CAN do to influence people subtly, but we also know that it's there and it does not MAKE people do anything. I suppose if any game developer really tried hard, they could screw some people up hard, but that isn't even what they want. The developers want you to like them and spend money on them. None of this is achieved by making people violent, so they're out already.
The main reason this receives alot of scorn is that nobody wants that to be true, I know. But if you're going to try and prove it, could you try to at least put REAL work into it that can demonstrate without fail the actual danger of games making people violent? This was somebody's job, not the stuff I do on offtime. Those who get paid to work should be the ones responsible for delivering the goods. I'm holding games innocent until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. The prosecution has made a call for emotional reactions due to game playing excessively. I would think that anyone who plays them would find this pretty straightforward. Doesn't prove the case, though, and I need alot more to see that one through.
"people who played a violent videogame for three consecutive days"
"once per day, for 20 minutes at a time"
So they play, what one match a day for 3 days and if they act aggressive it's the game's fault? Because everyone knows personality changing induced by a stimulus can occur in a total of an hour.
Seriously this test shows "long-term results" how exactly? All it says is they talked shit when they won. Better stop kids playing hide and seek since they'll tease people for being found easily too then.
I'm also noticing that the non-violent games are all competitive racing games, are you really trying to tell me not one of them talked shit during an overtake or get frustrated losing on the last bend? Or did they just not play those games online and call it a fair test group.
To summarize - these results are invalid, please spend another 5-6 years (going by their game choice) to actually draw up some valid conclusions. Granted the paper isn't out yet but if this is how they summarize it, dear jesus...
"once per day, for 20 minutes at a time"
So they play, what one match a day for 3 days and if they act aggressive it's the game's fault? Because everyone knows personality changing induced by a stimulus can occur in a total of an hour.
Seriously this test shows "long-term results" how exactly? All it says is they talked shit when they won. Better stop kids playing hide and seek since they'll tease people for being found easily too then.
I'm also noticing that the non-violent games are all competitive racing games, are you really trying to tell me not one of them talked shit during an overtake or get frustrated losing on the last bend? Or did they just not play those games online and call it a fair test group.
To summarize - these results are invalid, please spend another 5-6 years (going by their game choice) to actually draw up some valid conclusions. Granted the paper isn't out yet but if this is how they summarize it, dear jesus...
after reading this i sat down and wrote a letter
place do not quote. This is not a serious opinion, this is the little know-it-all, smug arsehole that lives on my brain talking.
Dear scientists
I believe that we could discover the cure to cancer, cars the run on water, flying cars that run on water, accurate human augmentations and maybe even figure out a way to populate the moon and all the planets if we quit focusing on what we know and start looking over the neighbors fence and discover something new. the fact that video games effect behavior is not a secret. video games are part of the secondary influential Channel[footnote]family and friends are nr 1. there, see, you learn something every day [/footnote] . the one that affect your mood. TV and music do the same thing. video games are a little bit more effective when it comes to changing you mood than the others in the category though. This i already knew, and so did everyone in the rest of the world that have heard of interactive storytelling. I snuggest getting on with your f***ing work. i understand that this is selling more headlines so i suppose i have to ask you. if you conduct these things. you are obligated to punch yourself in the face. resonantly heard they are planing to have a reality show on mars (somewhere in 2020) why don't you put recourse in to that. make it so the first person to walk on the face of mars isn't decided by a big brother clone.
sincerely, smart people
I believe that we could discover the cure to cancer, cars the run on water, flying cars that run on water, accurate human augmentations and maybe even figure out a way to populate the moon and all the planets if we quit focusing on what we know and start looking over the neighbors fence and discover something new. the fact that video games effect behavior is not a secret. video games are part of the secondary influential Channel[footnote]family and friends are nr 1. there, see, you learn something every day [/footnote] . the one that affect your mood. TV and music do the same thing. video games are a little bit more effective when it comes to changing you mood than the others in the category though. This i already knew, and so did everyone in the rest of the world that have heard of interactive storytelling. I snuggest getting on with your f***ing work. i understand that this is selling more headlines so i suppose i have to ask you. if you conduct these things. you are obligated to punch yourself in the face. resonantly heard they are planing to have a reality show on mars (somewhere in 2020) why don't you put recourse in to that. make it so the first person to walk on the face of mars isn't decided by a big brother clone.
sincerely, smart people
place do not quote. This is not a serious opinion, this is the little know-it-all, smug arsehole that lives on my brain talking.
If anything, this proves 2 things:
1) People engaged in competition like to grandstand their victories when the stakes are higher (fictional life or death).
2) Violence is entertaining, so rewriting a story to include more violence is preferable than having the main character find a pretty flower.
1) People engaged in competition like to grandstand their victories when the stakes are higher (fictional life or death).
2) Violence is entertaining, so rewriting a story to include more violence is preferable than having the main character find a pretty flower.
I think what we've proven here, more than anything else, is that the problem is far more complex than the reports we're given, but then that just means I would never be allowed to thoroughly examine the process without full disclosure. The thing of it is that no gamer is going to treat this positively EVER. And not just out of being in opposition to it. Nobody likes to be called out. As soon as you start SAYING video gamers are more inclined to violence, you're going to find that video gamers are more inclined to taking insults personally. The truth is that most of us who like video games have probably haven't been violent, so when you start making accusations basically...it's slanderous.Katatori-kun said:
That's at least what happens when you throw up a sensationalist news blip like this one. If I told you that your favorite something-or-other causes people to eat babies and howl at the moon, you...probably wouldn't believe me. But if I told everyone that, there'd be an uproar and be an even worse one if also did research. The fault lies in part with those who report this stuff in that it tells us NOTHING. No, really. If you want to convince people of anything, you're going to have to remove all doubt and mystery to make anyone even half-inclined to agree. As it stands, nobody will, which is to me probably for the better. This is a post-modernistic world where a good portion of what's true is what people think or make true because it might be a good idea. If video games have any influence to make people violent, it'd be better if those who don't buy into it make it not true by example.
What I think would be most important, would be how long these states last. I bet they are brief. Ones mood will change after watching an intense movie, bad traffic, recently having sex, etc etc. But it's temporary.
This report is a bit misleading. if the only movies you saw or books you read or games you play are violent then of course you will expect the same from other forms of media. They basically just did an allegory of the cave study and are trying to pass it off as new information to get people afraid of video games.
People who are scared of violent video games are just scared of something that they don't understand. Most people don't understand the psychology of murderers and they don't understand video games, but they think they do understand it all and want to ban violent games so people stop murdering, which wont solve anything. Bans have never worked and the fact that people keep begging for them shows just how dumb people can be. We need to learn from our own history, prohibition did not work, and the ban on drugs has fueled soo much gang money and deaths by guns (not overdosing) its ridiculous. If violent games get banned, I'm sure the underground video games that come out will be some of the most grotesque things on the planet.
Honestly i feel that violent games are good for people who could be murderers, because instead of acting on their urges in real life, maybe they just play some gta or call of duty. My logic to this statement is the shooter in conn killed little kids, which you cant do in video games, if only this person had some sort of outlet to murder children in a video game, he wouldn't need to commit the act in real life. I find this argument a lot more sensible than someone playing a violent video game day in and day out, then one day saying "this is so much fun, i just gotta try this in real life".
What happened in conn was tragic, and people trying to use that tragedy to get violent games banned is in bad taste when the studies aren't even there to back up their argument. People need to pray for the victims of the shooting and not praying that they get likes and responses from their facebook posts.
People who are scared of violent video games are just scared of something that they don't understand. Most people don't understand the psychology of murderers and they don't understand video games, but they think they do understand it all and want to ban violent games so people stop murdering, which wont solve anything. Bans have never worked and the fact that people keep begging for them shows just how dumb people can be. We need to learn from our own history, prohibition did not work, and the ban on drugs has fueled soo much gang money and deaths by guns (not overdosing) its ridiculous. If violent games get banned, I'm sure the underground video games that come out will be some of the most grotesque things on the planet.
Honestly i feel that violent games are good for people who could be murderers, because instead of acting on their urges in real life, maybe they just play some gta or call of duty. My logic to this statement is the shooter in conn killed little kids, which you cant do in video games, if only this person had some sort of outlet to murder children in a video game, he wouldn't need to commit the act in real life. I find this argument a lot more sensible than someone playing a violent video game day in and day out, then one day saying "this is so much fun, i just gotta try this in real life".
What happened in conn was tragic, and people trying to use that tragedy to get violent games banned is in bad taste when the studies aren't even there to back up their argument. People need to pray for the victims of the shooting and not praying that they get likes and responses from their facebook posts.
Actually, that was me responding to what you were saying by going "Well, nobody's perfect". Having a bit of a laugh over that now. Sadly, I should have made the fact more plain, but eh...nobody's perfect.Katatori-kun said:
Anyway, isn't it? That's what it boils down into. "We want to find something in videogames - Yes, it evolved into one word at some point, not sure when. - that links it to violence committed when a violent person appears to like videogames." Let's not be splitting hairs here. 'Negative effects in violent videogames' and talking about people feeling more aggressive because of games. What other interpretation could it possibly be other than to say "Violent video games make you more violent and therefore people who play them are more inclined towards it."? They're not trying to find patterns of aggression because they're merely interested and find this facinating. What is this discussion we've been having if you don't believe that's what it's all about? I just don't know where you're coming from now.