Violent Videogames Cause "Macbeth Effect"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
There's no magic number, given the prevalence of gaming (what was it, 47% of people?) you'd need a HUGE and varied pool to be able to produce anything with statistical significance, I mean we're talking in the thousands before anyone with a brain even pays attention. This kind of thing is only useful as a precursor to a study, to see if maybe, just maybe there's a connection there.Farther than stars said:
As an actual study this is paltry, I can get more people by wandering around my uni for a bit, I could have got more a couple of years ago. My AS level psychology I got over 50 participants in a day. Calling this a study is just...no.
That's basically my point, but I was referring the minimum amount required to be academically viable. You're a psychology student. You should know the standard for what that minimum is.Hugga_Bear said:
Although I'm all for psychology studies, especially when they center around video games and their effect, I was hoping the link would provide a more in-depth read. I have no doubts the study itself was done properly but the summary of the study and what was discovered feels way too condensed down for my liking.
Maybe people who play violent video games, which, depending on your definition, are probably most video games are more hardcore gamers in general who spend more time playing, and thus have less care for personal hygiene. Especially the hygiene of others.
And really, who gives things like deodorant and shampoo for a gift...? Personally I'm not big on essential living objects as gifts, things they'd just be eventually buying anyway. Maybe gamers who are in to those kinds of things are more aware of and give more thought to cause and effect and the consequences of their actions and realize that would be a terrible gift and choose something better.
And really, who gives things like deodorant and shampoo for a gift...? Personally I'm not big on essential living objects as gifts, things they'd just be eventually buying anyway. Maybe gamers who are in to those kinds of things are more aware of and give more thought to cause and effect and the consequences of their actions and realize that would be a terrible gift and choose something better.
"different strategies to cope"
I honestly don't remember a time when I ever had to cope with the hypothetical moral issues of my imaginary violence on make believe people.
I'm serious. I've actually tried to think about this in a serious light, and I can not think of one second of lost sleep or excess soap buying where I felt bad for murdering like, a million billion fake people.
I've done some fucked up shit too. In no particular order:
-I destroyed...several NPC villages in minecraft with nuclear bombs.
-I destroyed Megaton like 12 times with the nuclear bomb there.
-I think I ran over something like 50 to 1 million pregnant women over various GTA/Saints row games.
-Sometimes I drive on the sidewalk in GTA/Saints Row games on purpose just to see the people go flying.
-I drove at least one race to total extinction in Mass Effect 1, at least until the ME3 came along and fucked everything up the ass.
-I sold kid(s) into slavery in Fallout 3.
-I sold adults into slavery in Fallout 3.
-I let a nutjob frame me for blowing up a monument in Saints Row 3 so I could kill some poor retard in a mask.
-I then killed the whole military and formed a city state in Saints Row 3.
-I murdered something like a thousand million brown people and russians that one time I played Call of Duty 4. I honestly don't even know why I did any of that to this day.
-I killed like a thousand baby necromorphs in dead space 1 and 2.
-There were several occasions I killed sentient ghouls just for being ugly. I even cleared out that entire building one time. Another time I "fixed" their robot and let him do it.
-I used at least one nuclear missile on Venezuela or wherever I was in Mercenaries 2. Maybe more, I can't remember because there were a lot of bombs in that game. People were literally just leaving bombs laying on hillsides and shit.
-I unwittingly ate 10 thousand people's souls or something so I could shoot electricity in Infamous, re-found the tool I did it with the first time, and then did it again.
-I killed every non superpowered human in the whole world in Infamous 2 just because I was better than they were.
-I lead the charge to mindlessly kill all the mages in DA2 while I was a blood mage myself.
-I killed like 50 little girls in Bioshock for a slight combat advantage that probably didn't even exist.
-and lots more shit that would get me locked up for a thousand lifetimes if any of it was real.
I'm pretty sure if this stuff had any real effect on you I would be the king of PTSD right now.
I honestly don't remember a time when I ever had to cope with the hypothetical moral issues of my imaginary violence on make believe people.
I'm serious. I've actually tried to think about this in a serious light, and I can not think of one second of lost sleep or excess soap buying where I felt bad for murdering like, a million billion fake people.
I've done some fucked up shit too. In no particular order:
-I destroyed...several NPC villages in minecraft with nuclear bombs.
-I destroyed Megaton like 12 times with the nuclear bomb there.
-I think I ran over something like 50 to 1 million pregnant women over various GTA/Saints row games.
-Sometimes I drive on the sidewalk in GTA/Saints Row games on purpose just to see the people go flying.
-I drove at least one race to total extinction in Mass Effect 1, at least until the ME3 came along and fucked everything up the ass.
-I sold kid(s) into slavery in Fallout 3.
-I sold adults into slavery in Fallout 3.
-I let a nutjob frame me for blowing up a monument in Saints Row 3 so I could kill some poor retard in a mask.
-I then killed the whole military and formed a city state in Saints Row 3.
-I murdered something like a thousand million brown people and russians that one time I played Call of Duty 4. I honestly don't even know why I did any of that to this day.
-I killed like a thousand baby necromorphs in dead space 1 and 2.
-There were several occasions I killed sentient ghouls just for being ugly. I even cleared out that entire building one time. Another time I "fixed" their robot and let him do it.
-I used at least one nuclear missile on Venezuela or wherever I was in Mercenaries 2. Maybe more, I can't remember because there were a lot of bombs in that game. People were literally just leaving bombs laying on hillsides and shit.
-I unwittingly ate 10 thousand people's souls or something so I could shoot electricity in Infamous, re-found the tool I did it with the first time, and then did it again.
-I killed every non superpowered human in the whole world in Infamous 2 just because I was better than they were.
-I lead the charge to mindlessly kill all the mages in DA2 while I was a blood mage myself.
-I killed like 50 little girls in Bioshock for a slight combat advantage that probably didn't even exist.
-and lots more shit that would get me locked up for a thousand lifetimes if any of it was real.
I'm pretty sure if this stuff had any real effect on you I would be the king of PTSD right now.
They made a scientific study about this? I thought it was a popular stereotype that gamers and couch potatoes don't take care of their hygiene and appearance. 
I enjoy the "LOL WATS?" Like I enjoy a root canal.
I read a book that was written before video games (originally). It is called "On Killing: the psychological impact of killing" (name might be off). Written in the early 90s though updated a year or two ago, with a section on video games. It agrees with this study. The techniques used during WW2 evolved too the modern techniques that almost mirror what video games do now.
In WW2 and before, firing rates among soldiers were 15%-20%. Training implemented in Korea, 55%. Training in Vietnam too present 95%.
I know none of you want too hear this, but tough biscuits. Video games do tear down mental barriers to killing. They do not make us kill, they just teach us how too kill. Amazingly, that is not something most humans do naturally, we have too be trained.
You can dismiss this research, but can you dismiss research that did not originally involve video games that concurs with this study? I am NOT saying we should ban or strongly regulate video games, but this is going to be a LEGITIMATE conversation.
I read a book that was written before video games (originally). It is called "On Killing: the psychological impact of killing" (name might be off). Written in the early 90s though updated a year or two ago, with a section on video games. It agrees with this study. The techniques used during WW2 evolved too the modern techniques that almost mirror what video games do now.
In WW2 and before, firing rates among soldiers were 15%-20%. Training implemented in Korea, 55%. Training in Vietnam too present 95%.
I know none of you want too hear this, but tough biscuits. Video games do tear down mental barriers to killing. They do not make us kill, they just teach us how too kill. Amazingly, that is not something most humans do naturally, we have too be trained.
You can dismiss this research, but can you dismiss research that did not originally involve video games that concurs with this study? I am NOT saying we should ban or strongly regulate video games, but this is going to be a LEGITIMATE conversation.
Then comes my fit again, for I had else been perfect.
I think that's the quote, although it's been a while since we did a MacBeth unit in high school. I was probably the only person there who enjoyed it.
Have I ever felt bad after playing a video game? No, because it's a fucking video game. Let me list my atrocities that I don't lose any sleep over:
-Murdering hotel guests in their sleep in Fallout: New Vegas
-Burning down a forest in Minecraft
-Casting Soul Trap on kids in Skyrim and trapping them forever inside a Soul Gem. Now that I know the fate of people whose souls you used to refill your weapon's enchantment after watching gameplay videos of Dawnguard, I just doomed all the kids of Skyrim to the feeling of being eviscerated for all eternity.
-Killing hundreds of people in Assassin's Creed by shoving them off a ledge into water (you don't get desynchronized for that).
-Detonating a bomb inside the White House in Hitman: Blood Money.
-Killing practically everyone in DE:HR by impaling them with my arm blades or twisting their neck around multiple times.
-Murdering kids in Deus Ex
-Destroying all life on earth in Pandemic 2
What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of me giving no fucks.
I think that's the quote, although it's been a while since we did a MacBeth unit in high school. I was probably the only person there who enjoyed it.
Have I ever felt bad after playing a video game? No, because it's a fucking video game. Let me list my atrocities that I don't lose any sleep over:
-Murdering hotel guests in their sleep in Fallout: New Vegas
-Burning down a forest in Minecraft
-Casting Soul Trap on kids in Skyrim and trapping them forever inside a Soul Gem. Now that I know the fate of people whose souls you used to refill your weapon's enchantment after watching gameplay videos of Dawnguard, I just doomed all the kids of Skyrim to the feeling of being eviscerated for all eternity.
-Killing hundreds of people in Assassin's Creed by shoving them off a ledge into water (you don't get desynchronized for that).
-Detonating a bomb inside the White House in Hitman: Blood Money.
-Killing practically everyone in DE:HR by impaling them with my arm blades or twisting their neck around multiple times.
-Murdering kids in Deus Ex
-Destroying all life on earth in Pandemic 2
What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of me giving no fucks.
Maybe you are a sociopath?MammothBlade said:
I know if I do something like accidentally kill someone who spawned I will send an apology message to that person after the match, because I am not pathetic and can admit when I am in the wrong. Thats my way of dealing with guilt. But I dont feel guilt over the violence because it isnt real... or maybe that rationalising is my way of dealing with it?
Hahaha. Why would you think that?Kinguendo said:
It's a game... not as if I'm slaughtering real people. Maybe fulfilling some violent fantasies perhaps but there's nothing to feel guilty about.
Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack. :V
Quacks ran this study, that's all there is to be said about it really.
I wish there were actual news related to video games available day to day, not endless studies and clinical whatevers quacking to anyone who will listen that games will be the downfall of western civilization.
Quacks ran this study, that's all there is to be said about it really.
I wish there were actual news related to video games available day to day, not endless studies and clinical whatevers quacking to anyone who will listen that games will be the downfall of western civilization.
This guy has actually done a lot of research on aggression in general, and how video games/the media relate to aggression. At first glance, the research seems sound. I would like a follow up study with more depth (and to be able to access the details and statistics of this study). Such as, are the inexperienced gamers inexperienced because they have issues with violence and seek to avoid it? Do the experienced gamers have pre-existing empathy/aggression problems? Do the inexperienced have abnormally high empathy? Does age affect the results? Etc.
I do think that video games desensitize us to violence. Anyone who disagrees is sticking their head in the sand. The real question is - does that desensitization result in lower empathy? Do all the twelve year olds playing COD and running around yelling "I'll shoot you!" actually have a higher chance of shooting someone because they don't understand the very real consequences? (higher chance versus 12 year olds who have very little exposure to violence)
I do think that video games desensitize us to violence. Anyone who disagrees is sticking their head in the sand. The real question is - does that desensitization result in lower empathy? Do all the twelve year olds playing COD and running around yelling "I'll shoot you!" actually have a higher chance of shooting someone because they don't understand the very real consequences? (higher chance versus 12 year olds who have very little exposure to violence)
A quick Google Scholar search for Andre Melzer will show that he is not a "quack." I would say that there is insufficient evidence in the Escapist article alone to draw that conclusion. Don't write something off simply because you do not agree with it.Tradjus said:Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack. :V
Quacks ran this study, that's all there is to be said about it really.
I wish there were actual news related to video games available day to day, not endless studies and clinical whatevers quacking to anyone who will listen that games will be the downfall of western civilization.
What do you buy for someone for Christmas when you don't know them very well?
HYGIENE PRODUCTS
dear lord scientists get a grip.
HYGIENE PRODUCTS
dear lord scientists get a grip.
What I can't believe is that anyone takes this seriously, it's like there wasn't any violent behavior among humans before the advent of video games and other violent media. Overall we live in perhaps the most violence-free period in human history overall... which with all the violence going on gobally probably isn't saying much. To be honest people in the first world can go about their entire lives without being involved in any real violence, while that's only the first world, it still represents a larger percentage of human safety and freedom from actual violence than we've likely ever seen.
The thing that gets me is that most of the real ultra-violence takes place in areas where people don't play many video games at all, as they have other concerns. You know the guys who look at video game QQing and dismiss it as "a first world issue". It seems to me that you could actually prove (using the same logic from this study) that violent video games decrease violent behavior societally because the societies without video games are more prone to violence and barbarity. Of course that's totally stupid, but it's the same kind of logic.
What I find most disturbing about this is that the implication is that violent behavior is inherantly a problem. I believe people need to be able to control themselves, but being totally peaceful and passive is not a good thing. Especially when you look at the state of the world outside of the first world enclaves, and the problems going on. If anything I think the people of the first world are too passive and anti-violent for their own good on a whole and it's something we're going to regret, pacifying ourselves to the point of not being able to survive. A form of social darwinism where we eventually wind up getting overrun due to our own inabillity to defend ourselves, or willingness to fight and kill on the needed level for our own interests.
That said, another big problem with this is that issue of fun. People tend to forget that the whole point of gaming is to have fun and enjoy themselves. You can't do much gaming in the space of 15 minutes, or learn how to play a game seriously, develop a context for what is going on, or anything else for that matter. This kind of scews any kind of study involving gaming, especially if it involves people who are allegedly not gamers and thus lack any real context.
If these games are intended to expose the people to ultra violence in a game in 15 minutes there can't be much else going on there. I suppose if someone put me in a room and basically tossed me a limited section of "Manhunt" which involved the director telling me to draw a knife accross some victim's crotch or whatever, without any other context to the game or whatever, I'd think it was pretty screwed up, since your basically handling me an interactive snuff flick. As a horror fan I can say "well, that's disturbing but I've seen worse" to someone without that kind of experience I can see an increase in the "WTF" factor. To really evaluate the reaction to a game, the experience has to be taken as a whole, to use Manhunt as an example, the messed up things that happen are held together by a narrative. Slicing people up on command in a 15 minute session, is far differant than the gradually developed subtext of being forced into a televised deathmatch and comply with doing this crap or die, and going along with it in hopes of escaping... and of course taking down the sick puppet master behind all of this stuff. It's not a storyline that might be fun to everyone, but the context DOES matter, and games pretty much always have a context. As games become more advanced graphically, leading to all of these criticisms about violence, so does the context behind those actions, and yet nobody ever bothers to make that point in these studies, and those involved seem to even go so far as to ensure it's impossible for the guinea pigs to put the violence into any kind of context.
The thing that gets me is that most of the real ultra-violence takes place in areas where people don't play many video games at all, as they have other concerns. You know the guys who look at video game QQing and dismiss it as "a first world issue". It seems to me that you could actually prove (using the same logic from this study) that violent video games decrease violent behavior societally because the societies without video games are more prone to violence and barbarity. Of course that's totally stupid, but it's the same kind of logic.
What I find most disturbing about this is that the implication is that violent behavior is inherantly a problem. I believe people need to be able to control themselves, but being totally peaceful and passive is not a good thing. Especially when you look at the state of the world outside of the first world enclaves, and the problems going on. If anything I think the people of the first world are too passive and anti-violent for their own good on a whole and it's something we're going to regret, pacifying ourselves to the point of not being able to survive. A form of social darwinism where we eventually wind up getting overrun due to our own inabillity to defend ourselves, or willingness to fight and kill on the needed level for our own interests.
That said, another big problem with this is that issue of fun. People tend to forget that the whole point of gaming is to have fun and enjoy themselves. You can't do much gaming in the space of 15 minutes, or learn how to play a game seriously, develop a context for what is going on, or anything else for that matter. This kind of scews any kind of study involving gaming, especially if it involves people who are allegedly not gamers and thus lack any real context.
If these games are intended to expose the people to ultra violence in a game in 15 minutes there can't be much else going on there. I suppose if someone put me in a room and basically tossed me a limited section of "Manhunt" which involved the director telling me to draw a knife accross some victim's crotch or whatever, without any other context to the game or whatever, I'd think it was pretty screwed up, since your basically handling me an interactive snuff flick. As a horror fan I can say "well, that's disturbing but I've seen worse" to someone without that kind of experience I can see an increase in the "WTF" factor. To really evaluate the reaction to a game, the experience has to be taken as a whole, to use Manhunt as an example, the messed up things that happen are held together by a narrative. Slicing people up on command in a 15 minute session, is far differant than the gradually developed subtext of being forced into a televised deathmatch and comply with doing this crap or die, and going along with it in hopes of escaping... and of course taking down the sick puppet master behind all of this stuff. It's not a storyline that might be fun to everyone, but the context DOES matter, and games pretty much always have a context. As games become more advanced graphically, leading to all of these criticisms about violence, so does the context behind those actions, and yet nobody ever bothers to make that point in these studies, and those involved seem to even go so far as to ensure it's impossible for the guinea pigs to put the violence into any kind of context.