Not totally sure which forum to throw this one in.

I'm getting pretty damn sick of the misinformation being propagated by the media and politicians.

There is not a hard link between violent video games and violent actions. Only a casual one.

Youth violence has been in decline for a decade. It isn't increasing.

According to the surgeon general being male is more likely to make you violent then playing violent games.

Agreed. Here are some graphs that show the "connection" between violent game releases and crime rates:


And here is the source, a pretty good (if baised) article on it:
http://gr.bolt.com/oldsite/articles/violence/violence.htm

I would have to say that violent video games do not ellicit violent actions but I would say that players may become callous to such violence in the real world (apathetic, if you will).

You could make the same arguement that watching the news over and over again would make you callous to such events.

I would actually say that is most probably a true statement for a lot of people. The death of a person is no longer a tragedy.

Actually, there is a lot of truth to that. The way in which news is reported in our culture really does trivialize death.

However, would you take that, in the form of games or news, as leading someone to be more prone to violence? Or just callous to things such as death?

Simply callous, not prone to future violence.
If a person at the age of 16 constantly plays GTA, which comically pokes fun at death and rage, he knows the consequences and thus, the game will evoke some lust for rampage, but the next time he hears about the death of a person, there's very little chance he'll feel any true sympathy.

I'm an odd one personally, despite the fact that I do play many violent, gory, games. As long as the situation is entirely fictitious (for example, Halo. I had my adrenaline pumping to kill those Covenant idiots before they take over my planet!), I really don't feel anything, but as soon as it becomes real, I feel truly sad.

For example, I cannot play Call of Duty properly. Placed in the heat of battle, I can hardly play more than a half an hour of the game because I start remembering what these people had to go through (not to mention the Russians) and then whenever one of my allies die, I actually bad for them.

I'm weird, and the farther this post goes on, the less it makes sense. Hopefully, this response will ellicit further discussion.

See, I have no problems with the realistic games and the like. The fact that it happens means that, sure, it isn't entirely detached from reality (the game that is, the events are pretty true) however, having accepted this has happened in the past I have no problem playing a game such as MoH or CoD without remorse.

Some might say that is callous of me. Prehaps it is.

And thats exactly the mentality such games have brought to the table.

I doubt there are few WWII veterans who would revel in reanimating such events as D-Day or Stalingrad.

Yup, well, I can't say that bothers me.

Arya's point about reality detachment makes a lot of sense. Killing all the Space Invaders was the highlight of many hours as a teen.

I do not have Call of Duty, but I was affected much the same way that you were when playing MS's Close Combat. The name of the 'fictitious' people is prominent in the game. It was but a few minutes when one of the soldiers started slinking away in fear that I realized this paralled reality a bit too much to suit me.

Cowardess is nothing to be ashamed of as a person. It's a primal self-preservation instinct. It's hard to say if I would or would not have the courage to do many of the things during war, especially during the first real taste of battle. If the competitive, aggressive side of me surfaces, it would be easy enough to fight. If the orders didn't make sense, if the leadership was weak or if my unit was getting slaughtered, it's also easy to see where I would want to "bug" out.

Playing Texas Hold'em is a great example. When emotions come into play, I become either very agressive or very conservative. Folding a good hand is just an example of bugging out under pressure.

It seems to me, that when WWII vets DO play those games, they are not trying to rewrite history. They are trying to understand it. And, they are connecting and healing with some pretty incredible nightmares. They are re-living sadnesses that transcend time, and place. They are simply remembering. "Lest we forget!"

They have seen the reality of war. They cannot understand it, because I think that the reality of war requires more mental ability than one human can possibly have. We just try to grasp what we can, a peace at a time. Guilt, survivor's anxiety, etc. are all very complex, and confusing issues to those who struggle with it.

And, therein lies the difference, I think. No one wants to avoid war more than a warrior. The games do not address the cost of the outcome. And, you can always just save and get your life back. There is only a surface dimension that can be overcome with the delete key.

"I'd love ta kill..."

That's usually said first, and loudest, by someone who has not, and could not bring themselves to look a living human being in the face and cause an action that would end that person's life.

The problem with these games is precisely that. You don't have to. And, as players build up a rage "against" anything, they begin to believe the outcome is as simple as hitting the blue button.

Then, life gets in the way. Where's that blue button?

No, not for all players.

But, you would surely admit, there are some folks out there who should just never be allowed to push the blue button.l..

Or the red one.

I don't know that it would necessarily lead someone to be more prone to violence so much as it leads people to be accepting of things such as war, the death penalty, and revenge as being natural inevitable parts of life. I don't think that playing a violent video game will make you go out and kill someone. However, I do think that the media in general in our culture promotes violence as a necessary way of solving problems and desensitizes people as to its true evil. Violent video games are a part of this, but they are merely one manifestation of this general attitude of media in our culture.

But then, I'm just a crazy pacifist.

Yeah, you are, however you make a good point. It does add to the culture of violence, but I'd have to say if that really was a concern of people in politics, they'd best start with the things you listed, Death Penalty, War, etc.

If anything promotes a culture of violence more, its the state killing people.

Good point.
People who truly don't have an opinion take precedent from the state and find recourse in the fact that the government kills people, why shouldn't I? (to solve problems of course)

But then again, do you truly think there are many people with this mentality?

Not really, but still, it breeds a whole culture. It is a mentality of soceity, not just of direct action.

Yes, but the reason that people are able to accept, and even condone the state killing people is because of the way violence is portrayed in the media. It's somewhat of a vicious circle.

I realized that cycle right after I made my post. just didn't have the time to go back to it. I agree with you on that.

However, which do you (or anyone) believe is the thing that can/should be taken care of first to break this cycle? Violence acted out in games and on TV, or the state killing people?

Well I say a defense budget is a DEFENSE BUDGET. Preemptive strikes are BS. I also think that no nation should allow its arms industry to sell to other nations. These weapons can get used against us & they were MADE by us. Where's the defense sense in that? It also promotes other nations to resort to force quicker than if they didn't have the resources. Why is it necessary to help them protect themselves? Its absolutely condescending to assume that they don't know how to defend themselves if they needed to. The sale of arms should never be about profits but about need to one's nation. Does anyone think this might help?

Some might say that the best defence is a good offence. And that we need to establish ourselves in differing parts of the world in order to better protect ourselves and our interests.

And would that continue the cycle of violence as much as what is done on the homefront? To most geologically retarded Americans, what happens thousands of miles away is of no bother to them.

Well, I think that it'd be easier to get legislation passed than it would be to change the entire media of a culture. At the same time, however, the death penalty is only a small part of the problem: we need to abolish this whole concept of revenge in the criminal justice system, in my opinion.

Land that we do not own is not ours to arm. It's just wrong to me. Too much emphasis is placed on international business needs in our government & too little on the constitutional rights of the people of this nation.

People have been saying forever that video games not just violant ones affect younger minds and I don't really see how this is justified because if it were true then don't you think our parents genoration would been all sitting in dark rooms eatting power pills and saying wakawakawakawak all day long lol

Because it breeds a culture of violence. One in which violence if easier to accept than it has ever been.

Our parents generation are totally different in ours in many fashions when it comes to media attention on certain issues. Its rather lengthy to go into how our parents generation weren't exactly the most peaceful bunch, but certainly were as they were for a different reason.

On the other hand aren't the most peaceful of mankind's history of cultures now extinct? It has to be a global mutual agreement for it to work. A concensus of all humanity. Of course populations could explode & we could use up our resources faster than solutions could be found. Then again maybe not since with mutual cooperation solutions could be found faster.

Based on humanity's past & present history, I'll maintain a defense for now, deeming it prudent.

I'm actually writting an argument paper for college trying to prove violent and mature media does harm youth. I actually don't believe it does harm youth as much as propaganda would have you believe, but the support for the argument of that media being harmful has more sources I can reference.

I'm non-violent. I've never been in a fight or anything like that. I've played PLENTY of violent and mature video games at a young age, and still do play them sometimes. Metal Slug (entire series), Gunz Online, Mace64, Mortal Kombat(forgot which ones), King of Fighters series and several NEO GEO Fighting games, Samuri Showdown, Metal Gear Solid, Perfect Dark, WeaponLord, Street Fighter, Killer Instinct, Quake, Halo, trust me I've played plenty (more that I feel like listing here). I think it has a lot to do with the intelligence of the individual, and the ability to put things in perspective and differentiate what is acceptable in the real world.

A few games I would never play:
The Doom series
BloodRayne
Manhunt
Hitman
Resident Evil series
Or any other horror type series

I hate horror.

Will have to disagree with that statement, though I will qualify it by saying that no one appreciates things like peace and freedom as much as the warrior does. They prove that by their willingness to fight for it.

See if you can get a copy of "Everything Bad is Good for You," which talks about the benefits of contemporary cultural trends (like IM, videogames, and reality TV).

You can't deny that realistic video games give young gamers something to imitate.

Violence is glorified in American culture.



How much would you bet an First-Person Shooter
gamer has a better shot than a police officer?

Go check out some Jack Thompson stuff, he'll hook you up to everything you need to know ;).

But really, yes, if I had my other computer working, I could give you some info concerning that, for I am putting together some info on it.

But I have to say, as I try to gather this information from a non-bais viewpoint, I see more and more that the arguements concerning the idea that "It just has to change peoples minds" are largely not backed up. And any tests that are shown have serious flaws in them.

I'd recommend about.com for some of the medical trials run concerning violence in video games/media.

Violent video games are produced because they are what sell. It’s basic economics. You give the consumer what they want. Violence can not be erased. Humans have a violent side. Give any five year old a twig and it automatically becomes a gun or sword. In ancient times, Roman emperors pacified the mob by giving them what they wanted; pure, ruthless, and bloody violence. The only real way to control this is to do what every functioning member of society does on a daily basis; recognize their flaws and problems and then overcome and suppress them.

Okay, but what I thought was the focus here was the society of violence that this brings fourth. What you say is true, but its a circular. It doesn't really have any conclusion, except itself.

Isn’t that true for almost anything? Social problems aren't fixed until society as a whole fixes them.

Also, check out "On Killing" by David Grossman. He's a military psychology expert, and talks extensively how first person shooter games do in fact contribute to gun violence. His argument is balanced and persuasive. He acknowledges that likely, these games do not "make" people more violent, nor does it "convince" them to go out and shoot people. He acknowledges that people who go out and gun down a bunch of people ALREADY have something wrong with them.

His argument, however, is that these video games do two things: they serve as training simulators, and they numb people to the reality of killing. The first effect is evident--and in fact his research shows that people who play shooter video games are in fact better shots with the real thing. Of course, there is no substitute for shooting a real gun, but video games do improve one's aim. The second effect is more debatable--that it numbs people to the effect. His argument is that a lot of times, kids who go on a shooting rampage revert into a "video game mode" in which they just keep shooting the way that they were trained to do over hours and hours of playing Bond and Halo.

His example for all of this is a case in which a kid went up to a prayer group and unloaded 15 rounds into the group. Out of the 15 rounds, he had 11 hits, including 8 head shots. That kind of shooting was quite atypical prior to the advent of video games (people were more likely to aim blindly and shoot wildly). But this shooting is not only incredibly accurate--it is somewhat cold-blooded. Grossman argues that it's very similar to the type of shooting that happens in a game like Time Crisis--where you just shoot whatever moves.

It's an interesting argument. I tend to buy it, especially with all of his military expertise.

As for the aim, I would actually consider that a positive thing, it is a skill that passes over to other things. Not always aiming a gun, but still, skill sets that are used. But I fail to see how that is a link to a person actually picking up a gun and shooting someone. I would have to go with the 'the person already had somthing wrong with them" aspect of that more than anything.

Of course there's something wrong with them beforehand. You don't play a video game you don't enjoy so there has to be a desire first, but that doesn't make you a killer. But what I wonder is would more people similar to that be more likely to shoot up a school with video games or without? Do they cause or divert? This was a question one of my friends brought up when we were talking about this topic.




Interesting offtopic:
MAVAV (Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence) is a hoax organization. More Info

Violence is glorified in almost every culture. The only thing that has changed is that parents are becoming more lenient and turning a blind eye to a lot more.

To what degree do we "glorify violence"? In games like Metal Slug you use machine guns to blast through mobs of soldiers, you slash them with your knife as blood sprays out, you blow up tanks with grenades, you shoot rocket launchers at ships full of people, and every now and then you use a flame thrower to burn your nameless enemies alive (all at a very fast pace). And according to THIS website, the whole series (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, X) is only number 97 out of the top 100 most violent video games. Do you understand that 96 more games (or entire series) are more violent than that?

How many parents would knowingly allow their children (say age 12, 9, 7?) to play this?

The problem is parental ignorance and apathy. They don't know about video games, they don't care about video games. Parents need to wake up, it's not just pacman and tetris anymore. I bet most parents couldn't tell you the games their kids play, much less the ratings of those games or what is appropriate for their age. But don't blame video game companies. Someone is paying for these products. Money for these games doesn't just fall out of the sky.

I think video games perhaps make it more likely, but I wouldn't say that they cause. I think the rise in teen violence, particularly gun violence, is something that needs to be examined from a whole host of perspectives. I think video games is too easy a target. Does it have an effect? In my mind, I don't see how it absolutely could NOT have an effect. On the other hand, I don't think it's the MAIN factor, nor do I think that banning violent video games would reduce violence.