dickywebster said:
As i say everytime someone claims theres a link between violence and games, there are games that have sold millions of copies, violent ones at that, so if games make people violent, why havent there been hordes of gamers everywhere murdering people?
Because there is no evidence, no one has been able to prove that only a game (when its been linked to a killing) was the one and only reason.
If anyone meantions one of several cases where like a 10 year old played gta then went out and killed a younger kid, these games are rated 18 for a reason, cause kids shouldnt be playing them, yet the parents who are happy to let their kids play these games never get blamed.
Oh and ive played most of the mainstream violent games various media or politics peoples say cause violence, yet im known as a fairly peaceful guy, actually its been noted that ive become less violent since i began playing games fairly regually.
So i can actually use myself as a case.example of how this link to violence is rubbish, cause it is really, you might as well say facebook causes violence for all the evidence there is.
Come back when someone whos played a disney game has gone on a killing spree, so when its a kids game and not just certain games, until then you cant even claim its videogames as a whole like they are so fond of doing.
Alright for your benefit and everyone with similar sentiments, understand that we're not going to get anywhere by being ridiculous and intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting the opposition the way they do to us. This backfired back when PnP RPGs were under fire and made the issues go on for a lot longer than they should have.
Understand, nobody is claiming that gamers literally run out and monkey everything they see in video games. Especially seeing as gamers don't have the capabilities to say jump out of a VTOL buck naked even if they were inclined to monkey it (to use someone else's referance), and of course there are issues of self preservation involved that don't come into play with some of the more ridiculous claims.
I do not agree with this, but I understand it:
The arguement is a bit more reasonable, and also more insidious than that, and as such has to be confronted properly. The basic arguement is that by seeing, and most importantly interacting with sociopathic behavior (especially as the perpetrator) it leads to people becoming more likely to find such behavior acceptable. Thus while a gamer might not go on a shooting spree because he plays games where he does so, he might be more likely to find a reason to kill someone far more easily due to putting less of a general value on human life. Likewise a game where you have sex with prostitutes and can kill them afterwards might lead someone to generally come up with attitudes about how having sex with hookers is okay, as is killing them after a dispute or simply getting violent with them after refusing to pay. Violence with prostitutes is a BIG deal, and part of the entire issue of prostitution.
The kind of issue being claimed is that say during a robbery by someone who plays a violent video games might be more likely to just blow the clerk away needlessly, than hold them at gunpoint and leave. Not to mention when desperate he might be more willing to swing towards crime, and especially violent crime, as a potential solution. This is not to say that games CAUSE these problems or that they wouldn't happen without them, but that they increase the frequency and most importantly the severity. Basically if you desperatly want money for something your more likely to rob someone for it if you've become used to the idea of it and have had alternative crime-game morality drilled into your head which can become more appealing as you become more desperate or feel your not being treated well. The fact that this stuff is loosely based on reality and real mentalities can make it seem increasingly seductive. Likewise if some poor horny guy is used to banging hookers in games, he might figure "Well, why not go do it for real" and afterwards might figure "well heck, why pay, she's a criminal, doesn't have a pimp, I got what I wanted, and I can just beat her up and leave".
The point here is that the claims are more subtle, and trying to say things like "oh yes, I am going to go on a shooting rampage" make you sound more ridiculous than the claims your trying to refute, and like your trying to avoid the actual issue. You can't win a case if nobody takes you seriously... and really I've noticed a tendency to resort to the same kind of exagerration and sarcasm in most internet debates when someone can't come up with a valid, well articulated response to the issue.
When it comes to terrorism enacted by the computer, well understand there are other issues at stake here. The global economy is in rough shape, and faith in goverments is at an all time low. Right now things are holding together due to people generally not being all that violent, but as misguided attempts at non-violent protest with no teeth behind it fail (like the Wall Street protests in the US) people are going to get smart enough to realize they need to start giving it some teeth. People tend to forget about the left wing terrorists that actually were the force behind the civil liberties movements and reforms in the past. The non-violent protests of Martin Luthor king were a show of force once what could happen was established. Other civil victories were not won by lazy hippies sitting around smoking dope and being rude to the police in lagre groups, they were won because of the terrorists within that movement who were blowing people up, and kidnapping and brainwashing girls like Patty Hearst. We haven't seen that kind of thing for a long time, but a lot of goverments feel the wind changing, and as protests like the ones at Wall Street fail, they know it's a matter of time before people start getting violent. You might not agree with what the terrorists stand for in say "Modern Warfare 3" but that kind of thing might give people the idea to do the same kind of stuff in pursuit of a cause they DO agree with, especially when they start getting angry enough to look at the past and realize that it not only works, but has generally been the only way to REALLY get anything done when you get past all the idealism. Needless to say this isn't in the best interests of the goverment, and you can see why they would want to slow the process by trying to surpress material that could lead to that kind of thinking. That, and you also have the whole "peace at any price" aspect of things, and the motivation which people don't agree with behind the terrorism. The peace at any price attitude is such that they don't want people to be reminded of why we should hate various groups, especially when warfare and violence is the counter-response.
Thanks for reading this far, I'm just explaining what's behind all of this. The bottom line is that you have to understand games like this play havoc with the agenda of the anti-war "Muslims/Russians/Chinese/whomever are our friends" stuff (I have no idea who the terrorists in the game were, I haven't played it), as well as planting dangerous ideas (indirectly) in the minds of people at a dangerous time. More directly relevently to this article and current trends many people believe it increases the severity of crime and the likelyhood of people turning to violent action... which is BS, but is distinctly differant from saying "it makes your kid get up one day and start shooting people for no reason", most arguements like that are not taken seriously so don't represent the other side, and acting like that just makes you seem like a bigger idiot than your serious opponents. Also in a period of turmoil like we're in, politicians need to be seen to be doing something, video games make a great political boogieman to address and pretend they are doing something important, so they can avoid having to deal with larger, more complicated issues that are liable to doom their political career whatever they do since huge amouts of people will be POed whatever way they go on them.
