You're aware that the longer that list becomes, the less valid your arguments become, right?ZombieMonkey7 said:
Research Finds Negative Effects in Violent Videogames
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
No shit, genius. If all I've seen of Private Whatever-His-Name-Is is killing Nazis then I'll obviously think of him killing Nazis, won't I?
If all I've seen Lewis Hamilton do is race, that's what I'll see him doing.
I honestly wonder how these people are still any kind of researcher.
If all I've seen Lewis Hamilton do is race, that's what I'll see him doing.
I honestly wonder how these people are still any kind of researcher.
This study DOES NOT implicate a tie between playing video games and violence - only video games and aggression. An important distinction.
Violent video games, over a period of time, make people more defensive and they expect others to be more aggressive - sound familiar, gamerbros?
It?s important that we begin to develop more gaming interactions that revolve around violence - because gameplay does effect on who we are.
Which is not to say that aggression is unmanagable, or even bad!
Violent video games, over a period of time, make people more defensive and they expect others to be more aggressive - sound familiar, gamerbros?
It?s important that we begin to develop more gaming interactions that revolve around violence - because gameplay does effect on who we are.
Which is not to say that aggression is unmanagable, or even bad!
I am not saying that I agree that this study is garbage, but 1,000 or 1,000,000 garbage studies prove nothing more than a single garbage study. If the study is carried out under improper conditions then the results are not valid. That is the complaint most often leveled against these studies, that they are done poorly and the results are therefore invalidated and should be ignored.Farther than stars said:
I hate these studies, and for a very simple reason.
None of the researchers seem to have a personal relationship with the gaming scene. They don't seem willing or able to understand that any source of frustration in any shape or form will make people aggressive. I've seen my father come home from work looking like he was about ready to chew a baby's head off, and I've seen my mother drink herself to sleep in order to cope with the sometimes awful reality of working in a nursing home.
I'm a gamer, and I have access to something my parents don't, in this respect. That's a sense of distance between me and games as a source of frustration. It's not because I can't get past this or that stage that my day is ruined. I don't need to put anyone through a couple hours of me being grumpy because I keep getting fragged or stun-locked or whatever. I am not what I do while playing games. In most other avenues of life, however, things *are* taken personally. I *am* my thesis. I *am* my currently shitty job. I *am* my own lack of enthusiasm for Christmas.
What these studies show is that some people, sometimes, are unable to make that distinction. So a noob-tuber destroyed you in BlOps. Does that entirely define who you are? Does that negate everything else you're good at? Of course not. Get over it, and consider that the noob tube is there *specifically* for the task of evening out the playing field between new players and veterans.
It's off-topic, I know, but that's something that bugs me a lot. Competitive CoD types seem to consider that their poison of choice has nothing *but* competitive mechanics. Anybody who tries to fit in who can't level out with that expected competition is a parasite, according to these gamers.
Everyone's been a newbie once before. I wish some of the more passionate types in the FPS crowd would remember that.
None of the researchers seem to have a personal relationship with the gaming scene. They don't seem willing or able to understand that any source of frustration in any shape or form will make people aggressive. I've seen my father come home from work looking like he was about ready to chew a baby's head off, and I've seen my mother drink herself to sleep in order to cope with the sometimes awful reality of working in a nursing home.
I'm a gamer, and I have access to something my parents don't, in this respect. That's a sense of distance between me and games as a source of frustration. It's not because I can't get past this or that stage that my day is ruined. I don't need to put anyone through a couple hours of me being grumpy because I keep getting fragged or stun-locked or whatever. I am not what I do while playing games. In most other avenues of life, however, things *are* taken personally. I *am* my thesis. I *am* my currently shitty job. I *am* my own lack of enthusiasm for Christmas.
What these studies show is that some people, sometimes, are unable to make that distinction. So a noob-tuber destroyed you in BlOps. Does that entirely define who you are? Does that negate everything else you're good at? Of course not. Get over it, and consider that the noob tube is there *specifically* for the task of evening out the playing field between new players and veterans.
It's off-topic, I know, but that's something that bugs me a lot. Competitive CoD types seem to consider that their poison of choice has nothing *but* competitive mechanics. Anybody who tries to fit in who can't level out with that expected competition is a parasite, according to these gamers.
Everyone's been a newbie once before. I wish some of the more passionate types in the FPS crowd would remember that.
My point is that if there are a million studies out there that suggest the same link, they're a lot less garbage than any unscientifically founded arguments, because they have an academic community backing them up.DrOswald said:
No, those studies happened. Every new medium or genre that becomes popular with the younger generations tends to be feared by their elders. It happened with novels, with theatre, with jazz, with rock and roll, it upturned the comic book industry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_of_the_Innocent], it happened with goth culture, with heavy metal, with rap, with Dungeons & Dragons, with 80s action films, with 80s horror films--video games are just the latest target of those busybodies who squeal, "think of the children!"Lawyer105 said:
TVTropes even has a trope for it [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheNewRockAndRoll].
You guys, I studied 70 people at a retirement home over a couple evenings. And I now have data that suggests that without canes, walkers and wheel chairs, movement everyone in the world would not be able to move around without falling over. It is imperative that we all buy walkers for ourselves lest we collapse under our own weight.
5 minutes of I wanna be the guy = me in a violent rage ready to strangle kittens.
6 hours of Planetside 2 = me in a coma from boredom.
I think your study should have taken into account frustration. Cod 4 is known to create raving rage because of competition. Condemned is more a game that makes you shit your pants out of fear raving hobo's will attack you from behind.
6 hours of Planetside 2 = me in a coma from boredom.
I think your study should have taken into account frustration. Cod 4 is known to create raving rage because of competition. Condemned is more a game that makes you shit your pants out of fear raving hobo's will attack you from behind.
Yeah, that makes sense ... although I expect that's less to do with the violence itself, and more to do with aggressive competition. You get that effect in sports too, except it's called "team spirit".Andy Chalk said:
And my point is that a million points of data that were each obtained through faulty experiments will lead to an incorrect conclusion. Bad data is bad and should be thrown out. Having a great deal of bad data does not somehow make it good data.Farther than stars said:
Maybe those who prefer violent and aggressive video games are already more aggressive and confrontational in nature then those who prefer sports and non-violent games?????
Can we just stop with these articles? Every single time something like this gets posted it's always by some university saying the exact same thing every single time. Then, all the comments just turn into a giant circlejerk about how video games don't cause violence any more than other media and blah blah. It's getting kind of annoying seeing this content consistenly rehashed on this site, there has to be something more interesting to report on.
I mean...okay?
The first study just shows that humans will draw creative solutions from recent experiences. The second one makes perfect sense; violent content is more intense, so it will provoke a stronger response.
But I'm pretty sure you'd get extremely similar responses from, say, violent TV programs. There is yet to be any evidence that video games have a significantly greater effect on people than other violent media.
It's an interesting study, but doesn't condemn video games at all.
The first study just shows that humans will draw creative solutions from recent experiences. The second one makes perfect sense; violent content is more intense, so it will provoke a stronger response.
But I'm pretty sure you'd get extremely similar responses from, say, violent TV programs. There is yet to be any evidence that video games have a significantly greater effect on people than other violent media.
It's an interesting study, but doesn't condemn video games at all.
AGAIN, a scientific "research" done by a biased group, who would probably rather chisel onto their computer screens rather than use them.
When are we going to see the day that these people look away from a violent persons OUTLETS and start looking at the person? Each person is going to have a unique background, ethnic culture & upbringing, and these are all going to be factors in how a person reacts to violence in a video game. But no, these people have to give results based on a generalised test with random people. We weren't even told about their backgrounds, they could have been prisoners for all we know. I know that's a bit over the top, but my point is that aggressive people are going to react to aggressive things, the game has next to nothing to do with it.
I like how they decided to name it as "Disturbing" when they asked questions directly after the gaming, when the scenarios within the game are still fresh in their mind and obviously going to affect their thinking process. What about giving them a few hours, hey?
I'd probably be inclined to agree with this, had they not already been trying to make us think like this for the last few decades. Next, they'll be waving a cross at GTAV, stating that this is the cause of increased road rage in america. Again, look at the people. Not their outlets.
When are we going to see the day that these people look away from a violent persons OUTLETS and start looking at the person? Each person is going to have a unique background, ethnic culture & upbringing, and these are all going to be factors in how a person reacts to violence in a video game. But no, these people have to give results based on a generalised test with random people. We weren't even told about their backgrounds, they could have been prisoners for all we know. I know that's a bit over the top, but my point is that aggressive people are going to react to aggressive things, the game has next to nothing to do with it.
I like how they decided to name it as "Disturbing" when they asked questions directly after the gaming, when the scenarios within the game are still fresh in their mind and obviously going to affect their thinking process. What about giving them a few hours, hey?
I'd probably be inclined to agree with this, had they not already been trying to make us think like this for the last few decades. Next, they'll be waving a cross at GTAV, stating that this is the cause of increased road rage in america. Again, look at the people. Not their outlets.
One thing people In this medium don't consider is what if they're right? what if people playing violent video games does cause some form of anger/aggregation/violence. We gamers are to quick to stand up and defend our medium, but truthfully there really hasn't been enough research into this area and for people to make sweeping statements such as "this is just another bullshit study" this doesn't encourage them to study further. A good analogy here is with cigarettes, for years people smoked and either Ignored medical research or continued to smoke anyway. I will admit that I am not an expert on any of this research but if you ignore every study that goes against what you want to find then you are no better than fox news.