logo Sign In

Hot button Topic: Video Games and Violence

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
A few months ago, I started a couple threads about a couple topics we had discussed here on the boards in random threads. The more successful of these topics was on gun-control.

I am dead bored here at work, so I thought I'd try starting another one.

There really is one thread rule:
Be respectful. If you disagree with someone's point of view, don't go into a tirade of 4-letter words that would make George Carlin blush. Present your thoughts in an intelligence, cool-headed manner.

Now, on to the topic.
One website I have bookmarked is called Computer Hope.com. I haven't visited lately, but today, in my boredom, I stopped by and saw they had a monthly poll.

Do you think games provoke violence?

I thought for a moment about how I felt. I'm not sure how I fit into their poll, and I didn't see any additional area to elaborate. So, I thought perhaps I could start the discussion here.

So, do you think video games provoke violence?

My views:
I'm not even 100% sure how I feel about this. I, myself, cannot recall ever having felt compelled to violence by a video game, so I don't know what goes through the minds of people as they play these games.

I think the trouble is a growing desensitization from generation-to-generation.
People want to push the envelope. Then someone decides to push it farther. Eventually, you get to the point where what was extreme 5 years ago is tame by todays standards.
(To use a completely unrelated example, look at clothing in the last 120 years. Watch Mary Poppins. For a woman to expose even her lower leg was not tolerated. Or, watch Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. There's a scene where Dick van Dyke has on one of those classic full swimsuits. Where one of those to the beach nowadays and you'll probably get laughed at. But consider how things have progressed. Women now wear shorts that make men's boxers look long and we have the *shudder* speedo.)

I believe that some games, as they push farther to the extremes, are slowly desensitizing kids. As they become desensitized, the kids are able to do more things without fully understanding the consequences of their actions. They don't understand that shooting a person can kill them.
(Anyone seen commercials for that new demolision derby-type game? They actually have minigames where your goal is to throw a man out of a car. I would not be surprised if we see some poor dimwit get in an accident just to see how far he gets thrown, not understanding the dangers involved.)

Now, do I think we need to ban these kinds of games? No, we shouldn't.

I think the main trouble is a lack of parental supervision.
When I was young, I had to get permission for just about anything I did. My parents wanted to know where I was, where I was going, when I'd be home.

I have no doubt that 90% of parents would be absolutely appauled by the violence and other activities in thse games, but they are not even aware their kids are playing them, or they haven't paid enough attention to the games to see it.
(I believe the same is true with the lyrics in a lot of today's music, but that could be another topic for another day.)
Author
Time
Post link
I know for a fact videogames don't promote violence.

See, I play Mario games all the time, and nearly every one of them has you killing Turtles... A few weeks ago, I cought a turtle while fishing--a snapping turtle. My dad told me to kill it, so I did, but I still found it distastefull. I couldn't even bring myself to jump on it--I had to go get a rock.

IMO, anyone who is predisposed to violence is probably also going to play violent games. And if one doesn't realize that shooting someone is a bad idea or that car wrecks have a good chance of killing you, then their problems are far more severe than too much videogames; they have some sort of disconnect from the brutally obvious, or else... REALLY bad parents.

4

Author
Time
Post link
No it dosen't. That's ridiculous, like blaming rock 'n roll music for satanism. Why don't the people who blame videogames for violence blame Star Wars? I mean, there are a LOT of people killed in the SW films, and every single movie is composed of violent people solving their problems in violent ways (cutting arms, shooting everyone, exploding planets and death stars and killing millions). So why don't blame it for violence? Maybe because videogames are interactive, but how interactive are they? Well, you are basically commanding a on-screen character in a series of very limited pre-determined animations, which is, logically, the same as having 10 channels showing violence and you changing channels at will, it's as interactive as videogames.

What causes violence:

1- Dumbness. Dumb people resort to violence. If you ever have to fist fight with someone or point a weapon to someone, you are a VERY dumb, moronic, stupid, idiotic person. Why causes dumb people? Bad education and dumb parents (and dumb people at the surrounding).

2- Drugs. Dumb people take drugs. Dumb people resort to violence to get more drugs.

3- Pooverty. Anyone poor and smart enough will do something to get out of this situation. Get a job, or create your own job, or whatever. Anyone with any education or politiness will never resort to violece. Now, dumb people, when they need money, they'll just punch someone in the head until the golden coins pop out of their ears, and they'll take the coins and spend it on beer.

Note: Anyone dumb enough to resort to violence will do such a thing no matter how many times they've played GTA San Andreas.

You wanna cut down crime? You wanna cut down violence? Don't ask for people to get weapons - chances are that dumb people will get those too and shoot you in the head. What you gotta do is to get kids who are possibly going to grow up being idiots and give them books and proper education. There's NO way to solve this problem NOW, in a similar way that there's no way to solve the terrorism problem now. BUT... one can solve the violence problem in the future. The answer is to raise the kids in a way that they don't have to be violent, or are smart enough so they don't have to.

By the way, by "dumb" and "smart" I don't mean how good your grades are and how high or low is your IQ, I mean how well educated you are about respecting others and our world. The Unabomber was a brilliant genius, but he was a dumb motherf***er. Now, someone like Forrest Gump with an IQ of 75 would be someone smart, get it?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
I would respond by saying that only stupid people START fights. Sometimes the smart ones have to finish them.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
I would respond by saying that only stupid people START fights. Sometimes the smart ones have to finish them.


If you mean "finish them with violence", the answer would be no.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Some people only respond to violence; words mean nothing to them. I'm not talking about picking fights, Ric, I'm talking about judicious use of force against those who don't understand anything else, IE the cops shooting a crazed assailent or using martial arts to end a fight before someone gets badly injured.

4

Author
Time
Post link
OK, I know I was generally oversimplifying the whole issue - and that was my intention really - but I do belive there are two different acts that tend to be mixed together. One thing is "neutralizing" a general threat when it has become aparent that it is impossible to act in a different way, sort of like exploding an asteroid before it colides with Earth (yes I know exploding would only make it worse, it was an example), or when you have someone in a car chase and you have to colide or shoot the tires or anything violent related.

This gets complicated because it's hard to define a line between senseless violence and neutralizing a threat. Someone with a gun on the street, a sniper shooting the person would be considering an OK shooting, a neutralizing action, or a stupid violent act, depending on the background of the situation. If he has a hostage, it's one thing, if he points the gun to himself, you wouldnt shoot him, you would talk to the person (in both cases he is threatening other's life). Take the brazillian shot by the english cops as an example, as several witness and news medias claimed, he was not running, did not jump over the gate, was not wearing a heavy coat, and the cops didn't properly identified themselves before stoping him and shooting him several times. To me, that is idiotic, dumb, senseless violence, as was the bloody sunday, as is the bombing of civillians, as was hiroshima and nagasaki (even though there is blood in both american and japanese sides).

*sigh* I feel like I've written two full paragraphs but only made the issue worse, I feel like it won't make my point of view clear at all....
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
OK, I know I was generally oversimplifying the whole issue - and that was my intention really - but I do belive there are two different acts that tend to be mixed together. One thing is "neutralizing" a general threat when it has become aparent that it is impossible to act in a different way, sort of like exploding an asteroid before it colides with Earth (yes I know exploding would only make it worse, it was an example), or when you have someone in a car chase and you have to colide or shoot the tires or anything violent related.

This gets complicated because it's hard to define a line between senseless violence and neutralizing a threat. Someone with a gun on the street, a sniper shooting the person would be considering an OK shooting, a neutralizing action, or a stupid violent act, depending on the background of the situation. If he has a hostage, it's one thing, if he points the gun to himself, you wouldnt shoot him, you would talk to the person (in both cases he is threatening other's life). Take the brazillian shot by the english cops as an example, as several witness and news medias claimed, he was not running, did not jump over the gate, was not wearing a heavy coat, and the cops didn't properly identified themselves before stoping him and shooting him several times. To me, that is idiotic, dumb, senseless violence, as was the bloody sunday, as is the bombing of civillians, as was hiroshima and nagasaki (even though there is blood in both american and japanese sides).

*sigh* I feel like I've written two full paragraphs but only made the issue worse, I feel like it won't make my point of view clear at all....


Yes. Well the Brazilian man was one extreme case, and a really bad ordeal. (Actually, when I first heard it I worried that it was you, Ric.) I guess it can be hard sometimes to see when force is excessive; it's a hard judgement to make, especially when you have adrenaline pumping and all...

4

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab

Actually, when I first heard it I worried that it was you, Ric.


LOL!!! Really? Well, just for the fact that I'm from Brazil, there was the chance of one in 180 million... And I've never been to London...

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Yes, but I didn't *know* you'd never been to london. Hey, If HotRod, Hot.Like.Fire., and Yoda Is Your Father were there, why not you?

4

Author
Time
Post link
Oh ok makes sense...

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
I ACTUALLY THINK THAT VIDEO GAMES STOP VIOLENCE. YOU GET PISSED OFF, SO YOU GO PUT IN A VIDEO GAME WHERE YOU CAN TAKE OUT THAT ANGER ON VIRTUAL PEOPLE WITHOUT ANY LEGAL ENTANGLEMENTS.

Good point.

I for one think that it comes down to parents, it is not a video games fault a kids goes bad it is their parents.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: segaflip


I for one think that it comes down to parents, it is not a video games fault a kids goes bad it is their parents.


Exactly. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain--yes, sometimes kids go bad even with good parents, but it's rare. And it certainly isn't video games--or violent movies--that causes a well-raised kid to go bad.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
I ACTUALLY THINK THAT VIDEO GAMES STOP VIOLENCE. YOU GET PISSED OFF, SO YOU GO PUT IN A VIDEO GAME WHERE YOU CAN TAKE OUT THAT ANGER ON VIRTUAL PEOPLE WITHOUT ANY LEGAL ENTANGLEMENTS.


That's exactly what I do. When I get pissed, I'll pop in a GTA game, kill some people, and, in a few minutes, I feel very relieved. No harm done. The people regenerate. They're not real. And I actually have the sense to distinguish the difference between a game and real life. Opponents of video games might find that disturbing, but is it any more so than taking out aggressions on a punching bag or going to a shooting gallery where you're actually hitting and shooting as opposed to pushing round buttons on a controller to make someone else do it?

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Manhunt is the worst of them all. killing people for sport and getting a better score for sicker more gruesome acts.
"Yub Knub" by Warrick Davis
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Quote
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
I ACTUALLY THINK THAT VIDEO GAMES STOP VIOLENCE. YOU GET PISSED OFF, SO YOU GO PUT IN A VIDEO GAME WHERE YOU CAN TAKE OUT THAT ANGER ON VIRTUAL PEOPLE WITHOUT ANY LEGAL ENTANGLEMENTS.


That's exactly what I do. When I get pissed, I'll pop in a GTA game, kill some people, and, in a few minutes, I feel very relieved. No harm done. The people regenerate. They're not real. And I actually have the sense to distinguish the difference between a game and real life. Opponents of video games might find that disturbing, but is it any more so than taking out aggressions on a punching bag or going to a shooting gallery where you're actually hitting and shooting as opposed to pushing round buttons on a controller to make someone else do it?


I think that considering the videogame violence as a form of releaf can be dangerous. What if your videogame broke? How would you seek this "releaf"?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
But again, I don't think anyone is going to actually kill someone because of playing it...

4

Author
Time
Post link
keep this in mind.

how old are most of you?

the problem here is 11-15 year olds playing M and AO games. The problem is that they might not know any better. I mean if you are 18 or older the idea is that you are mature and responsible enough to be playing games like that.

which of course makes the whole video-games promote violence in children a moot point. Your 12 year old kid SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING GTA. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU? PARENTS ARE CLEARLY AT FAULT FOR NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE DAMN RATING, OR EVEN WORSE SIMPLY IGNORING IT.

I am completely serious here. Everyone at my little brother's school from like grade 6, possibly 5+ have played this game. If not at their home, at somebody elses. They think that the only way to have fun in a game is if there is something to kill. I am serious, I have tried playing racing games, adventure games, rpgs, etc etc with my brother and his friends and they think its boring. "so who am I supposed to kill?" "what do you mean I can't bblow your car up?". those are actual quotes. SHIT!

Heck, they think watching R rated movies is a moot point. "what's wrong with it?" What are parents teaching kids by bypassing authority. Kids aren't allowed into R movies and they aren't allowed to rent them, so their parents rent it for them. And God help the poor movie clerk who asks the age of the person watching it. I do note that not one politician has said that it's parent's fault. That would undoubtly lose him/her a ton of support.
gtfo
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Skipper
keep this in mind.

how old are most of you?

the problem here is 11-15 year olds playing M and AO games. The problem is that they might not know any better. I mean if you are 18 or older the idea is that you are mature and responsible enough to be playing games like that.

which of course makes the whole video-games promote violence in children a moot point. Your 12 year old kid SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING GTA. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU? PARENTS ARE CLEARLY AT FAULT FOR NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE DAMN RATING, OR EVEN WORSE SIMPLY IGNORING IT.

I am completely serious here. Everyone at my little brother's school from like grade 6, possibly 5+ have played this game. If not at their home, at somebody elses. They think that the only way to have fun in a game is if there is something to kill. I am serious, I have tried playing racing games, adventure games, rpgs, etc etc with my brother and his friends and they think its boring. "so who am I supposed to kill?" "what do you mean I can't bblow your car up?". those are actual quotes. SHIT!

Heck, they think watching R rated movies is a moot point. "what's wrong with it?" What are parents teaching kids by bypassing authority. Kids aren't allowed into R movies and they aren't allowed to rent them, so their parents rent it for them. And God help the poor movie clerk who asks the age of the person watching it. I do note that not one politician has said that it's parent's fault. That would undoubtly lose him/her a ton of support.
I agree. My parents were quite, let's say picky, about what I did. At 11 or 12 , I wasn't even aware of Doom or Wolfenstein (the games of that time period). By 16, I had seen both and I think I was a fairly avid Warcraft 2 person.

I work at a library, and I watch as 10 year olds come in, wanting codes for GTA: San Andreas or they enjoy their 50 cent Candyshop. You have no idea how tempted I have been to send notes home with some kids, asking their parents if they have ANY idea what their kids come to the library to do. But then I worry about what the parents might say...
Author
Time
Post link
OK, seriously, though...

Give kids some credit. I played Mortal Kombat when I was nine and ten--In fact, I was down right obsessed with it! Games don't make violent kids. Bad parents, or violent neighborhoods make kid's violent. I really don't think it has anything to do with games.

4

Author
Time
Post link
On the SNES version of MK2, they trimmed a few gruesome bits.

ie Subzero ripping your spine out replaced with a lamer move
"Yub Knub" by Warrick Davis
Author
Time
Post link
Hm. I never played the SNES version of Mortal Kombat. Other than the censoring, was it any good?

4

Author
Time
Post link
oh yeah, but the Sega version is better (my opinion).
"Yub Knub" by Warrick Davis