The Bulletstorm Controversy

[Gralian]

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

The part highlighted for emphasis because i wanted to make it clear that if we're talking about young gamers, i feel it should be the parents' responsibility to read these warnings, not the child, and either talk with their child sensibly about the information presented in the warnings and insert or at least do things to help guide their child in the right direction. For example, they may say to their child after an hour or two of gaming "Why don't you take a break for 15 minutes and chat with me / go outside / read something?" as i honestly don't expect kids or young people to pay attention to any of that jazz if it's just another warning on the TV screen or insert.

The reason i'm discounting adults and late teens is simply because they are able to think for the themselves, and any influence things like video games have on their behaviour at this stage is now marginal and they are responsible for their own behaviour. This does not count for individuals with prior mental health issues though, as we cannot possibly compensate for everybody here. I think people need to differentiate between "children at risk of being influenced by interactive source material" (IE direct exposure to violent and graphic scenes affecting their behaviour) and "violent and graphic scenes affecting adults and late teens with mental health issues using games as a vehicle for escapism or fuel unhealthy fantasies". This particular topic doesn't deal with the latter, and i won't get started in that kettle of fish. Though i will say this (and i mentioned it before) but i have an anxiety disorder, and i found games both helped and hindered me as it was a tool of complete escapism. I could have maybe of done with some warning or information about how i might end up depending on games to deal with my anxiety issues, which is something that could be put on the informational pamphlet or at least display a website during the loading screens or something.

I don't know... it's a messy issue, and not one with any clear cut answer. I think what we should ask ourselves here is if you or i happen to throw away an insert and not pay any attention to it, does that mean we should scrap the idea entirely? I think we need to look at the bigger picture here - if say only 4 out of 10 people read it, that's always going to be better than 0 out of 10 because you felt it wasn't worth putting the information in in the first place.

 

[castlewise]

I want to applaud the deep truths at the end of the article. I think there are some serious things to think about when it comes to games and kids. I use a great deal of self discipline to make sure I don't play more than is good for me, and to make sure I get my less enjoyable work related tasks finished. Kids don't have the training, the tricks, the experience to fight the desire to play videogames as effectively as an adult or even as a teenager.

The mom in the final paragraph was right. Games are designed by very smart people to be engaging. This is, by and large, a good thing, but it can go too far. If some guy in China can literally game himself to death, what chance does a 6 year old have without parental support?

 

[Mouse One]

Kudos for an intelligent and well thought out article.

The question I would pose to Dr. Mark: there are a number of studies dating back to the early sixties that found statistically significant negative correlations between previous exposure to violent media and subsequent reactions (GSRs, etc) to violent imagery. In other words, seeing violent images desensitizes subjects to future violent images.

Of course, videogames are just one form of media (I think the bulk of the studies were about television imagery), but it there have been a few studies that indicate that this link holds up for videogames as well. Now, in my *opinion*, desensitivies does not necessarily equate to future violence, but could very well facillitate violence in certain subjects by removing a certain amount of avoidance conditioning. After all, desensitivity has been used since forever for military training-- to good effect, of course.

So, the question is-- once alarmism is taken away, is there a subtler but not dismissable point here? Should we say "this is why it's not a great idea for young children to see a lot of violent imagery before they've achieved the reasoning level needed to deal with it?". I apologize for the leading question, as that's how I feel. I do think that the ESRB serves a useful function. And as those of us who enjoy games that we wouldn't necessarily allow children to play, we need to recognize that there are issues with *any* form of violent media. Do videogames cause rape? Of course not-- but we should be aware of the aforementioned issues so we can discuss the subject intelligently when the alarmists come riding into town.

P.S. Props for the term "media psychiatrist". Lord protect us from the "professionals" who do so much disservice to the public image of real mental health and research professionals.

 

[mattttherman3]

I would say that comparing video games to tobacco and alcohol is folly(as in addiction), I have never heard of a gamer yoing through physical withdrawls. Although there are those who play for days straight and die, those are the true addicts, probably would have gone crazy if someone would have told them no more world of warcraft for you. My parents say I'm addicted sometimes. One problem with that is that I only play a game for more than 2 hours at a time if it's: A) New and B) the story is so great that I can't put it down, kind of like a great book or movie.

You can't blame videogames themselves for any action. The kids that kill their parents for taking their games away? Probably been playing since a young age and are addicted, and when the parents finally take it away, mental breakdown. It's never a good idea to let kids play certain games. I remember breaking a controller after getting pissed off once when I was 10. What I'm saying is, don't let kids under 12 play overly violent games.

 

[Fearzone]

Eh, a very predictable middle path.

I think we all know, including you Dr. Mark, that the causal link between video games and real world violence is a load of shit. Remember when playing Dungeons and Dragon's made us Satan worshippers? This is the same thing. Some people get offended by the content of our entertainment and so come up with "studies" and "data" and "facts" off the top of their head to somehow substantiate their personal opinions and values.

I mean, we know humanity was so much more peaceful before the advent of movies, tv, and videogames. What, were the Romans incited to violence by watching Homer's Illiad at the local amphitheater too much?

It would be nice to see somebody with a clinical license come forth to call these people on the baseless crap they are spewing.

Maybe some people do waste their lives playing videogames, but that's a completely different topic. Apples and oranges, mon frere.

 

[Continuity]

Its true that games are a time sink, but I have to wonder how many kids that are "failing" education because of games would be "failing" because of something else if there were no games.
Take me for example, I was always a rubbish student, most of the time I would rather do anything than study. As a kid I played with toys, then I read books, then I got a TV in my room and I split my time between books and TV, then in secondary school I got a computer and split my time between games and the other two.

The inveterate procrastinator will always find something to get between them and what they're supposed to be doing... like right now, I'm supposed to be working on a project that I have to hand in on Monday but here I am writing this post.

 

[Booze Zombie]

The main thing in all of this seems to be that games don't cause problems so much as when they are used by someone with a problem, it's quite noticeable.
I suppose the main thing is "one size doesn't fit all".

 

[btenkink]

There are many excellent truths to be found in this article; many thanks for writing it Dr. Mark!

Amidst all the bandwagon jumping and blame-games (no pun intended), it is good to know that parents blaming an external medium for their children's issues is nothing new. In my childhood, it was D&D, Tom&Jerry, and later Pokemon which suffered the wrath of public outcry. The team from Extra Credits had some excellent points to make as well on this topic.

To paraphrase Extra Credits: Soon a new fad will come along, and the gaming industry will give up its place as the scapegoat of society's ills.

Games are refined in this media firestorm, and I predict the outcome to be positive for games, the Gaming industry, and the growing community of individuals who have been brought together by this wondrous form of entertainment. When the dust settles, Psychologist Dr. Whatshername will be a footnote in the annals of the History of Gaming.

 

[Fuhjem]

Well, for me, when I have kids they'll only be getting their hands on violent games after they turn 8. Ages 6 to 8 are the closing gaps to forming a distinct personality, so playing a violent game after age 8 would prove harmless in my opinion.

Before they turn 8, I'll have them playing non-violent games all the time like Pokemon (to teach them pet care and organization). Plus, games have been found to increase concentration in children. Focusing on the now when playing a videogame improves concentration as opposed to passive entertainment forms such as television where images blur past the kid's eyes.

 

[millertime059]

Lets everyone focus on the real issue. Gamers are not likely to be swayed by Fox News' coverage, a good portion of the audience here has seen the research and data which at this time does not support her position.

The real issue is her opinions are being expressed as fact, and other experts were purposefully misquoted to put the spin on the story that Fox wants. Another gaming site* did a very extensive well researched series on this topic where the contacted all the experts, got their actual statements on record, printed the full transcripts, and even linked the studies used in the article. The biggest problem is that Fox deliberately, aggressively, and dangerously ignored all evidence and statements that did not fit with their agenda.

An American news outlet making crap up to put their agenda out there as fact, not surprising, but it should be. She was just a tool Fox used, and her opinions, though ill informed, are just that. The problem is what Fox did with her, and others, statements. After all never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

This is why I hate most news media. I caught the stunt they were trying to pull this time, I know the topic. It's the stuff I don't know well, or more importantly the common public which doesn't usually exercise the critical thinking I do, where people are swayed by such reckless scaremongering.

*Google Bulletstormgate, you'll find it easily.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

I think most of the association between violent video games and violence is a red herring. Really, the association is between violent video games and aggression. Furthermore it's usually aggression immediately after playing. Video games aren't alone in this either, whenever people see or simulate aggressive behavior, it tends to make them more aggressive. I think it's a red herring because the aggression is usually only seen immediately after the stimulus, I don't think you can conclude that it makes you more aggressive overall. In fact, I think there is definitely something to catharsis. Acts of aggression help one relieve stress, and after one cools down, one will probably feel less stressed out (unless one is under constant stress of course). That's what I find in my personal experience.

And as far as what parents do, I think the most important thing is to have your child understand death and violence so that they realize fantastic representations of it aren't accurate. Take them to go see animals get slaughtered at a butchery, then give them the circle of life speech. (Just not when they're too young, I think ten or eleven would be a good age to do it, otherwise it'll just be traumatizing.) Other than that, you just have to prevent them from obsessing over the video games. I think the best tactic there, and in general, is to use persuasive prudential reasoning, tell them what is and isn't in their best interest. Authoritarian proscriptions are asking for rebellion, try to always give reasons why you are putting limits on them, and explain how they can better the situation.

 

[Blankmessenger]

I dislike how video games are getting worse reputation as the days go by. Sometimes its the developer's fault (i.e. EA and yes I watched Extra Credits). When I was growing up, I never really heard anything bad about video games but then again it was in the early stages of being big. But with more and more people having access to these games, it is becoming a big issue now of the effects video games have and what government can do to censor video games.

From my own experiences, I feel that video games should have equal rights to that of films. There is and isn't much difference between the two. When going technical there are a lot of differences but in general the only difference is that one medium is interactive while the other is just visual.

As to whether or not games in general cause violent or rape like tendencies, I would have to take a look at the data and say that it doesn't. These statistics are, I think, reported cases of violence and rape which implies some are not reported for various reasons. Now most mainstream games like Bulletstorm is loud and in your face violence. If someone were to imitate the acts of mainstream video games then it would most likely be reported and probably obvious. If someone were to be violent and cover it up then they would probably have a better chance watching Law and Order while taking notes.

The most commonly violent act would probably occur within multiplayer gaming such as Call of Duty or Halo. But the most extreme case is that could occur in that sense is a controller is thrown in frustration. Although a violent act the user learns something great from this experience. If the only connection between user and "fun" is broken, then they pay the price. Then that realization would be known and the user would most likely take better control of a natural emotion of frustration. Probably be healthier in the long run.

I could go on ranting about video games until I die but the main thing I want people to get out there is that just because video games display some aspects that others do not understand or may find offensive, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. Heck I don't like Twilight but that doesn't mean that I'm going to make accusations that Twilight shows young teens that it's ok to decide the love of your life at a young age (The only thing I know about Twilight is that it has vampires, wolf transformation,a human and a love triangle thing). Thanks for reading.

 

[ModsDeleteThisAccountPlease]

I'd like to thank Dr. Mark for considering both sides of the issue and not just pandering to a base.

 

[Craorach]

Having a ten year old stepson has made me rethink my views on video games and violence recently. Suddenly I find myself concerned with the effect many of my favourite games would have on him, making it a house rule that he not touch them and seperating them out from the more child friendly games. Yet, while doing this, I also realise which all parents everywhere should be forced to realise. It is 100% on me to manage this. No, the video game industry should not consider it in any way other than ensuring proper ratings for games. If video games are meant for children, they should contain appropriate content and be rated such. If a game is meant for adults, then it should be able to contain absolutely any legal content that a movie would, even a pornographic movie.. anything which is legally permitted for adults in ANY media must be legally permitted in ALL media. I find parents demanding controls pathetic because they should be the ones in control.. they would not allow their children to watch Saw, or Girls Gone Wild Ten, or whatever.. but they let them play video games without thinking.

While Dr Mark's article interesting, and I am glad it shows both sides... comparing an Entertianment industry to alcohol and ciggerettes is completely inaccurate.

Cigerettes are an incredibly harmful substance with proven physical as well as psycholocial addiction issues. Fortunately they are becoming less socially acceptable.. which incidently doesn't mean that people shouldn't be free to use them within their own homes.

Alcohol is one of the truest scourges of mankind since its creation, yet it is still totally accepted by a vast majority of society. It is damaging and dangerous to the body, addictive, and leads to more violence and death than almost any other substance we produce. Yet people drink vast ammounts of it right infront of their children, behave as if it is some great coming of age ritual for them to be able to drink legally, and encourage it... and yet, my opinion of this fuel dressed up as a drink does not mean people should not be allowed to use it in their own home.

As with most media and non physical influence, the effect video games has on people is purely the result of their upbringing and society. If someone is borederline, then yes, it might trigger something.. however, nothing should be banned or influenced by the possibility of a tiny percentage of people being badly effected by it.

 

[duchaked]

well if your publicity are in the forms of raving bad reviews of your book on Amazon...that's actually pretty bad and can hurt heh

 

[pokepuke]

If we can agree that intensive gaming can create or exacerbate mental health problems for some people, then perhaps the industry ought to take a careful look at its products and their impact. Of course it's about fun and entertainment first, but if the products you make can have adverse effects on intensive users, don't you have some responsibility? The tobacco and alcohol industries have found the answer to be yes.

I don't think anyone should agree with that. Especially not the "create" part. What could possibly be created? Could it be some latent inner desire that never surfaced until it was experienced in an interactive virtual environment? Even that seems like a stretch.

The effect games have on users, if anything, is one of having theirs inner desires placated. Just like a crazy woman that wants to live out a rape fantasy, she typically doesn't really want that to happen, and if inclined to go through with it would pick a person she knows or an organization she trusts. Running from the cops in GTA might give you a rush and a thrill, but anyone that isn't a moron would realize he/she wouldn't actually desire being chased by cops, because that shit is scary.

This is the reason why ESRB ratings exist. A bit of mental preparation might be required so the user isn't freaked out or given the wrong impression, the latter being associated with the "morons" I noted above. Just like the dumb kids doing Jackass stunts and hurting themselves, you don't want the audience to be confused. That is the only real danger I could ever agree with.

Whether video games could be used as a gateway for your ultimate desires is murky territory. You could speculate that it can be used as a testing ground, to feel out actions you may wish to do for real. For some, it may bolster their desires, but others may have the opposite reaction. Their ultimate desire could just be to become a snowboarder.

 

[freaper]

I'm pretty sure rape and pillage didn't increase when this painting was released

http://toonstoonstoons.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/olympia.jpg

It seems to me that some (I'm really trying to restrain myself from calling names here) people don't realise we have a history, it's like the only real thing for them is the present.
Humanity is a treacherous race, we kill for no reason, it's always been like that, and it will always be.

In the past people simply didn't know that some German kid went on a rampage in his school, or that someone in America shot a politician. But now we do, and people (just like in the 16th century with the Witch hunts) search for "rational" explanations. They don't try to see the bigger picture, because keeping it simple, is well... simple.

This is the exact same thing with games. They ("The Wizards" -Bill Bailey) don't understand what's going on, and out of some personal bias picture games as a scapegoat. Frankly I'm happy that it's games and not a religious minority... OH WAIT

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2iUbOliqVAE/TIX9pi8TyVI/AAAAAAAAEjo/8OATCsu0P7I/s1600/wtc-9-11.jpg

So until games will be widely socially accepted as a real medium other than superficial and childish, games, and gamers will be depicted as immature and a danger to society.

 

[Artemicion]

Fox News personalities always blow things out of proportion, and yeah, its usually just to get publicity. O'Reiley does it, Glenn Beck does it, and its Lieberman's lifeblood. Its best to just ignore them - if they don't get any reaction to their headlines, they'll change their agenda almost immediately.

Though she's totally right about Bulletstorm causing an increase in violent crimes. After playing for only five minutes, I went and punched my dog.





(NO I DID NOT)

 

[Susurrus]

Post deleted