Violent Videogames are Awesome

[Airon]

Thumbs up for providing a nice set of arguments in favour of video games that make sense.

Video games are to me by far the least dangerous fun I can have.

 

[Tactical Pause]

I agree with the article but I was thinking the matter over the other day and there is to me, still a downside, to violent videogames. It's when it gets into your thoughts. For example, having played three assassin creed games I find that often when I'm walking behind a random person I get the mental picture in my hand of using the hidden blade to kill them.

Obviously, this isn't going to happen and I recognize that it's a similar impulse to wanting to jump off stuff and fly but I heartily dislike the idea of a game getting into my thinking that way. But I also would argue that this is just my opinion and I wouldn't want assassins' creed banned or anything.

I think its important though that we recognise that the media we consume does affect our thinking.

I may be wrong, but that just sounds like an intrusive thought. Regardless of whether or not you play games, you'll still imagine yourself throwing babies down stairs and such. The fact that it's game-related just means you've been thinking about a certain game lately. I really don't see that as a game getting into my head in any insidious way.

 

[tzimize]

I get so depressed when I read articles like this.

The logic and argumentation is so flawless, and so simple. I just fail to understand why other people cannot grasp these facts. Why are there so many god damn idiots on this planet? :|

 

[Jumwa]

I would still say there is merit to gaming as a tool though. It provides such a unique level of immersion, agency, and even if cathartic release isn't "ideal", it's different than punching a heavy bag because you're pushing buttons instead of undertaking the actions yourself. I'd posit that the repetitive action of pressing the buttons could have a calming effect in some cases.

Of course there is no way to say as statistics rarely speak to the individual. What calms one person can enrage another. It's an interesting thing to ponder though.

For my experience, I've had a very fortunate upbringing. We didn't always have a lot of money or anything, but I had parents who always told me they loved me and offered positive reinforcement. And in turn I've done that same thing with my children. That in itself could be why gaming, a medium that by it's very design constantly gives rewards and positive reinforcement has always had a calming effect on me in times of anger or adversity. I always just assumed it was my little tool to help me work through the tough stuff. I lose myself for a couple of hours beating Ryu to a bloody pulp while my subconscious cranks through the garbage rolling around in my head.

This has been fun. Thanks for the discussion.

Likewise, thanks. : )

Yeah, there's a definite difference in hitting a punching bag and playing a game, no argument there. And I saw a study not too long that had kids play violent games then tested them in mild ways to see how they responded verbally, and that it increased their "aggression levels". Though in this case the manifestations of "aggression" were incredibly mild, which made the supposition that violent games led to violent behaviour silly.

Like as pointed out in the article, aggressive sports would trouble me far more than video game violence ever could.


I think the individual-factor is something everyone is quick to overlook in the race to come up with broad ranging catch-all rules.

 

[grigjd3]

It's a shame that when someone makes a reasonable, well thought out and polite argument like this, it gets too little attention. Keep writing this stuff though.

 

[PureIrony]

To add to the "you have your work cut out for you" part-there's probably no way we will ever get conclusive research data as to whether or not games make children violent in a closed experiment because then we would have to, y'know, test to see if a child is violent. Which we can't do.

Y'see, to test if children respond differently to game violence, we'd have to expose them game violence and real violence(a good study would also compare other mediums with violence, but that's beside the point)and compare the two. They would then have to find a legitimate manner in which to test that the child is more violent. You can't make that into an ethical study. There is no way that any respectable scientific body would perform that kind of research, and if they did, the results would almost certainly be thrown out.

Which, in turn, means we can only go by societal observation, which is outright refuted by the lack of correlation between violence and videogames. End of discussion.

 

[Galletea]

Very few he says, but the grin on the slimline, bearded and bespectacled chap on the top of the article looks too smug for it to be just a few...

 

[GAunderrated]

People actually care what talking figure heads in news stations think? I thought this generation has actually evolved and noticed the utter bullshit and lies that circle that particular profession.

 

[DragonStorm247]

I would add a sixth point:

Violent games are not actually about violence. Nobody loads up a game saying "Yeah! I'm ready to shoot/decapitate/murder someone!" because that's not the experience its meant to deliver. They're more about problem solving, overcoming challenges, etc. Anyone who asks "Why would anyone want to play a game where you do these horrible things?" is asking the wrong question.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

The thing that I always point to whenever someone says that videogames turn people and kids into killers (I do believe they can cause violence , but not at the level that people say they do) is the population of the United States. If what Katie, or any of these other people, said was true, the U.S. would be a waste land. There would be no one living here because we would have killed each other off looooooooooong ago. The sheer volume of people who play games is staggering, and thus there should be all out wars going on constantly if what Katie said is true. However, that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I get so depressed when I read articles like this.

The logic and argumentation is so flawless, and so simple. I just fail to understand why other people cannot grasp these facts. Why are there so many god damn idiots on this planet? :|

It's because there's an agenda that these media puppets are following either knowingly or unwittingly. That goes for political figures too. If you follow the money trail used to fund this nonsense I bet it will provide us with better answers to why they scaremonger the public. But this kind of crap worked better in the 90s with the whole Mortal Kombat controversy as an example. Nowadays gaming is so mainstream that these kind of arguments are just looking more and more foolish to more people. Give it 30 years and the media will have found a new scapegoat because there will be noone left alive who will believe their bullshit.

I sincerely hope someone sends Katie the link to this article. But something gives me the feeling that deep down she doesn't believe that games cause violence either.

 

[Braedan]

I would add a sixth point:

Violent games are not actually about violence. Nobody loads up a game saying "Yeah! I'm ready to shoot/decapitate/murder someone!" because that's not the experience its meant to deliver. They're more about problem solving, overcoming challenges, etc. Anyone who asks "Why would anyone want to play a game where you do these horrible things?" is asking the wrong question.

Incorrect. I many times feel that I want to shoot things. Pretend shoot things, but shoot things none the less. Maybe you don't, but I sure do, and almost everyone I've talked to (that plays games) gives the impression of enjoying seeing things explode into bits because they pulled the trigger.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Get the research done (hint: you don't do research on talk shows) and then maybe we can talk about violent games being a threat.

But but but... research takes time, money and has ethical constraints, not to mention best put through trial-by-ordeal via peer reviewed publication (anything not peer reviewed may as well have been scrawl on a toilet wall). That's a lot of resources that wouldn't be put into generating moral outrage for ratings... plus you can't trust that the findings will be suitable for, or twistable to, your needs.

I know I've banged this drum a few times on the forum but this is where the maor players in the industry have let themselves and, more importantly, gamers down - they should have been funnelling some money into this sort of research years ago. When the Moral Outrage Brigade really started setting its sights on video games, there should have already been a moderate stack of peer reviewed research papers by creditable professionals to slap them down with. Instead these handwringers show up with their pet academics (Andersen, Bushman and co.) and shoddy science (stuff an undergrad should be too embarassed to submit) and get to just run with it. The industry hasn't just been caught with its trousers down, it's been caught with its trousers in the wash... and of course, as usual, they'll ust pour millions of dollars into the coffers of law firms instead to cope with any issues that arise. Foolish, IMO.

 

[Something Amyss]

6 was really all you needed, but I'm glad you voiced these points. Especially stuff about the regulation of games, something people seem to keep missing. a shame it only will fall on the ears of the choir.

Your fifth point really reminds me of what Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller says: Don't call it violence, there is no violence in video games there is the artistic representation of violence.

That, to me, is the point that none of these pundits seems to realize, when I shoot someone in Far Cry 3 NO ONE GETS HURT!

Indeed. I'm a pretty nonviolent individual. I will fight to defend myself, but even then I'm worried about harming an attacker. I'm not sure my psyche could actually handle it if I killed someone, even if it was justified or accidental.

I still play and enjoy a lot of violent video games. Why? Because I'm not actually hurting anyone. They're pixels on a screen. They're an artificial representation of various things; people, aliens, animals. I don't go around hitting dogs, either, but I will shank a dog in a game with no compunction, too.

Even PVP, where there's an actual human on the other end, nothing that happens to the character or avatar happens to the player. They might get angry, but that's far from being hurt.

Now, I'm not saying I am your typical gamer. I am not saying I am common. What I am saying is that this "violence" is acceptable even to my sensibilities.

And honestly, with one of the other issues...

I don't think I was ever sensitive to video game violence in the first place. I don't know, they've been arguing desensitivity since the days of Space Invaders, and I was never really thinking about the horror of eating ghosts and shooting alien blobs.

 

[Lyvric]

All great, valid points. Well done!

 

[triggrhappy94]

Couric- N. A metric for fecal matter or other products of one's ass. Normally used in competitive shit shitting.
Entomology- Coming from the name of Katie Couric.

I wouldn't worry about what she has too say.

The ironic thing is, however, is that just normal TV viewing in children before the age of 5 has a huge statistical effect on their likelihood to commit violent crime. Where's the tweets blaming violent crime on Katie; she's contributing to TV programming.

 

[tzimize]

I get so depressed when I read articles like this.

The logic and argumentation is so flawless, and so simple. I just fail to understand why other people cannot grasp these facts. Why are there so many god damn idiots on this planet? :|

It's because there's an agenda that these media puppets are following either knowingly or unwittingly. That goes for political figures too. If you follow the money trail used to fund this nonsense I bet it will provide us with better answers to why they scaremonger the public. But this kind of crap worked better in the 90s with the whole Mortal Kombat controversy as an example. Nowadays gaming is so mainstream that these kind of arguments are just looking more and more foolish to more people. Give it 30 years and the media will have found a new scapegoat because there will be noone left alive who will believe their bullshit.

I sincerely hope someone sends Katie the link to this article. But something gives me the feeling that deep down she doesn't believe that games cause violence either.

Yeah...but that doesnt really help. A new scapegoat? What will that be? VR gaming? Something entirely different? I just dont see how humanity cant seem to LEARN more. For all the progress we make there are oceans of idiots refusing to evolve, I just dont get it. Sometimes I'm just shocked at the lack of rational thought in some people. I'm not expecting people to be rocket scientists...but to just...think a bit.

Edit: Oh man, I just noticed your nick. Nowhere Man. That was a sweeeeeeet show back in the day <3

 

[DragonStorm247]

I would add a sixth point:

Violent games are not actually about violence. Nobody loads up a game saying "Yeah! I'm ready to shoot/decapitate/murder someone!" because that's not the experience its meant to deliver. They're more about problem solving, overcoming challenges, etc. Anyone who asks "Why would anyone want to play a game where you do these horrible things?" is asking the wrong question.

Incorrect. I many times feel that I want to shoot things. Pretend shoot things, but shoot things none the less. Maybe you don't, but I sure do, and almost everyone I've talked to (that plays games) gives the impression of enjoying seeing things explode into bits because they pulled the trigger.

You misunderstand. I do not deny that virtual violence and the direct input/effect of trigger to exploding heads is enjoyable and satisfying. But it's not the fundamental core of the game. In an FPS it's mostly about the skill and tactics involved. If you designed a game otherwise, with it only involving the feature you just described (ie just press button to make things die), it would objectively be a terrible game.

Violence can be an important or prominent feature, but on its own it's not what makes the game fun.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

I would add a sixth point:

Violent games are not actually about violence. Nobody loads up a game saying "Yeah! I'm ready to shoot/decapitate/murder someone!" because that's not the experience its meant to deliver. They're more about problem solving, overcoming challenges, etc. Anyone who asks "Why would anyone want to play a game where you do these horrible things?" is asking the wrong question.

Incorrect. I many times feel that I want to shoot things. Pretend shoot things, but shoot things none the less. Maybe you don't, but I sure do, and almost everyone I've talked to (that plays games) gives the impression of enjoying seeing things explode into bits because they pulled the trigger.

I like destruction, mayhem and carnage. I also like being the cause of these things. Why? Not sure. Maybe it's because explosions look pretty. Violent videogames are a way to enjoy these things without anyone or anything getting hurt/damaged/killed/destroyed.

However, the other guy has a point in there somewhere or at least he had a point that partially matches up with me. I don't play multiplayer shooters solely for the destruction, it's also a test of skill and that's the main draw for me.

 

[carpathic]

Shamus, thanks for coming back. Your articles raise the tone around here and your consistently thoughtful analysis is a pleasure to read.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, and thank you for not just picking one actor in the social play and declaring that all social ills can be attributed to this one actor.