Alright. So, the recent shootings at Virginia Tech has brought up the discussion of video games and the violence it brings with it. What do you guys think about it? Does it influence kids to do things this serious?

As a gamer myself, it might seem like it's unfair and biased to say it doesn't. Honestly though, I myself play, and know many many others that do so too. Sure, maybe it doesn't effect me as bad, and maybe it's more intense for others then me; but it isn't really games that screw people up. It's what they do AFTER they play games, it's how they take the games they play and what they do after with it. I know theres a bunch of research out there involving this, but when it all comes down to it, it isn't fair to put the blame all on games. Whenever something like this pops up the blame it on video games, and restricting them more.

Just like the concept: guns don't kill people, people kill PEOPLE.

I guess the same goes for video games dont kill people, people kill people.

Let's have a HEALTHY conversation on this, remember, we all have opinions.

-Don

Normally I do not make requests in topics in the Speak Easy, but I am going to make an exception. Please limit this topic to violence in video games only, and not a platform for gun control, etc.

There are a lot of studies being done about the connection between violent behavior and violent video games. Some claim there is a connection, others claim there isn't. Some even claim it reduces violent behavior. What's a caring parent to do? Interestingly there is is this one study who says they are all right. Study finds stable personalities unaffected by violent games

IMHO.

Hour upon countless hour spent in an environment of violence and killing would, to me, have to have an influence on one's general outlook.

Of course, in a game, no one actually gets hurt or killed but when that outlook is taken into the real world, somewhere, somehow, some time, something could easily give in a provocative circumstance.

There is an interesting article here.

Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions

Interesting.

Wouldn't it seem that most children, teenagers, and maybe even young adults arguably haven't stabilized their personalities and are in "emotional states" that make them susceptible to all sorts of outside influences?

Just wonderin'.

I see nothing wrong with violence in games tbh, if someone can be influenced by a game/film to recreate what they see, they must have been pretty messed up to start off with, and more then likely would have acted violently at some point.

I just think what people need to remember is that games/films have age restrictions for a reason.

Everybody participating in this study was kids. Average age was 14.6 years. It doesn't concerns adults at all.

I agree. It is the role of the parent to teach the child the difference between fantasy and reality. I mean, who buys the games and consoles in the first place? Used to be, when my Dad bought me a football, he showed me how to throw and catch it.

I played many violent games, but my parents also pointed out that killing on-screen was not the same as killing in life; many different consequences!

Children must be taught! They don't know the Easter Bunny isn't real until someone tells them.

In my opinion, I believe everyone is way off with all of this. I play this game called WarRock which is nothing but killing. Somedays I play for hours at a time....the issue is how the average human being VALUES another human-being's life.

Life has been devalued to the point where the person next to you or beside you is meaningless.

The violence in the games I play has no effect on how much I love my wife and my family and how I want to do the right thing in every situation (without questioning what IS right.)

I see no harm in violent games that have a GOAL to accomplish. I agree with the original poster, that the responsibility falls solely on the one doing the killing. Individual responsibility and the VALUE of human life are the 2 most crucial things that NEED to be taught to our kids. Unfortunately, those two elements are scarcely taught.

Evilmonkeyz, I don't think I could have said it better myself. It might be a good thing, or perhaps a bad thing, but violent video games sometimes help "numb" the person to violence. This of course can be very bad, thinking that violence is "okay." At the same time, it can be good, it can maybe teach what is wrong what is right in a sense...like killing obviously might be fun in a game, but in real life it is something entirely different. It's a shame that people have a hard time distinguishing reality from the game...

I LOVE video games, and violent ones are especially fun, like Halo 2 or Grand Theft Auto. But I actually avoid conflict and violence in real life. This goes against what those video game haters would have you believe, that because I love violent video games, I must be a violent person. Not true. If a person plays violent vgs (video games) and becomes violent, the vgs are not the sole cause. That person was already prone to violence and shouldn't play, but it's impossible to filter the selling of games like this.

It all comes down to a person's decision. I also believe that violent vgs actually help get rid of aggression which is a good thing. Anytime you feel mad, pop in Halo 2 and kill some aliens . If you choose to kill some real people instead, that's a mental problem that cannot be blamed on vgs.

Exactly. I was having a convo with my friend the other day on the VA tech shootings, and he was telling me how "every person has their personal choice whether or not to shoot them, they all have their own choice." True, but some people don't have the mental "capability," to do it. Capability isn't a good word, but what I'm trying to say is that some people can't control it, the mentally unstable. And those that are unstable and play games are affected probably many many more times likely to do something drastic.

We can't blame and punish the ENTIRE gaming community because of a select few who chose to play the games the wrong way.

Lots of pros and lot of cons, but one thing for sure... all those hours and hours of playing violent video games hones some players into cold blooded, effective marksmen. That much is for certain.

As long as they are aiming with a mouse and a "crosshair" cursor!

took my roommate (avid player of FPS games namely the COD series) out for target practice the other day. He couldnt hit a 12" target at 50 yards using a 9x scope (I can hit at roughly 150-200 yards with a 4x and I hate FPS games). Gaming does not equal good marksmanship or gun handling.

There are reasons for this:
1)Jerking the trigger (Every FPS except AA does this)
2)Cant figure out how to work the scope properly (these no scroll or L2 button on a rifle)
3)Slamming the clip into the gun (Every FPS does this except AA, I wanted to kill him for this)
4)Not counting shots (not many games require you to reload)

I play many shooting games but I usually keep it to 3rd person veiws for those reasons. I have AA and Doom 1-3 as the only FPS's I own and play.

Precisely. I don't think it causes anyone to be "cold-blooded", except for those already prone to it and who shouldn't be playing, but unfortunately can't be stopped effectively.

Agree.Two things I believe are important,here. Not to become Addicted and Parental Guidance.
Otherwise, I can't see a problem with playing these games.

It's kind of like blaming car manufacturers for the death of people from drunk drivers. It's intent wasn't meant to kill. It's like saying Osama bin Laden plays Starcraft to practice his tactics. It just doesn't make sense...

It's almost as if whenever an event like this comes up we look for a scapegoat, instead of looking for the truth. We blind ourselves from the things we don't want to see...depressing really...

I agree that unless one is 'pre-disposed', I guess there is no harm in adults playing violent games.

But I am curious about something ... I wonder what the appeal is?

being from england and only seeing this from an outsiders sort of view (although tis sort of thing has happened here )was'nt this guy re-inacting a movie (think its called oldboy)so it does'nt have nothing to do with videogames or movies lets start blaming humankind instead of fiction


to all the people affected by virginia tech
my prayers and thoughts are with you god bless

On the appeal side of violent video games, or just video games in general, I think video games are a medium to bring an imaginative life to the real world.


On the virgina tech. and other school shootings, we need to stop placing blame I.E. Gun laws, video games, movies ect. we should work on the human aspect of this problem, find out why people do these things, identify the behaviors and figure out a way to fix a problem, the easyiest way to to be freinds, and make friends with others, and to not cause any trouble.

Exactly what I've been saying USSR

Yeah, also agree that video games let us do things that sometimes aren't possible to us in reality. It lets us escape and do ridiculous things, or sometimes normal things (like football) and it just lets us relax and escape the "real" world for once, which we all know is tiring and stressful as heck

Thanks for letting me know - I was honestly curious.

Video games allow you to be a noble hero, or to take on a persona of something you really can't do in real life, video games are pretty much like the matrix (only kinda , dont split hairs with me) where if you want a rifle you wish it and its uploaded, or you want a magic wand, you want to be a hero, or even try being the bad guy for once. It's an escape from RL (real life) and gaming has actually turned into its own culture! Humans are limited by multitudes of things ranging from physical, to mental, to human based laws, even time. games allow you a way outside those laws.

The thing is when you have your kids playing games you must make sure they know the difference between a game and RL, lining up, squeezing a trigger watching the bullet fly out of the barrel and go through the chest of another human is different than watching it in a video game. You can be the bad guy and steal money in a game but not in RL, it's against the law.

But I digress, we need to fix social issues and work on the human aspect of theese things because in the end the gun is not pulling its own trigger. The gun is just a medium for violence, now we have a medium you need gears behind it. If we can take out the gears of anger, dispair, depression then we won't have human/human shootings.

I don't think violence in itself is the attractive part (well it might partly be it as well), but rather the fighting which accompanies it. Fighting, as a very interactive activity lends itself very well to making a game.

Aha! Think I've got the concept now!
(Same theory I used when teaching little ones to bash the pooey out of their pillow rather than hit someone in real life!)

Right, I don't think anyone really plays games to actually see and "enjoy" the game. It's just a part of the game. Although there certainly are people out there who do play it for that sole purpose, many don't. It's kind of like people watching hockey just for the fights, or watching football just for people getting tackled. Don't get me wrong, I sometimes think some games are "lame" because theres no blood, not because I'm blood thirsty, but because it doesn't give the game a "realistic" feel to it.

To look further at why violent video games are so popular.

What makes video games so unique as an entertainment is the interactivity. It engages the player to actually be able to do something.

Fighting, and battles in general, is challenging and interactive. But fights without violence are very shallow (or lame as GoTwins put it) and not very engaging. The more violence the game has, the bigger the effects of the actions done by the player are, and the more engaging the game is. This is what made games like Solider of Fortune popular, where the gore went far beyond realism.

Also, violence, like sex, is an easy way to get an emotional response out of a gamer. There are other ways to do this, but they are not nearly as easy and require more artistic talent of the game makers.

Blaming video games for violence in the real world is not the answer. Video games don't kill people it is the person who made the wrong choice after playing the game. If the said person were brought up knowing right from wrong maybe they wouldn't have this problem. Video games just give ideas, they don't tell a person "Hey, go to your local gun store and buy a semi-auto. Then run to the local college and kill as many as you can with the ammunition."

I agree. It is the parents responsibility to teach their children the difference. I play video games that are really violent but before I could my parents told me that it is a game and not life. Doesn't affect me unless I start to lose and throw the controller across the room.

-Steve

hahah...several years ago I went through 3 PS2 controllers. Now I don't get angry at all. Well, okay maybe a little bit when I get beat by the long ball in Madden? you know what I'm talking about? you play good defense the entire game, then all the sudden your DB decides to cover a guard or something crazy and their received struts into the end zone......ugh.


What games do you play that are really violent? Also, do you take notice of the violence and enjoy the violence aspect of it, or do you see the violence as just a byproduct of trying to achieve a goal?

I really enjoy Rainbow Six: Vegas. The gameplay is violent, yes. There is blood and swearing.

But the neural pathways one must access in order to succeed are fantastic. I mean, you really have to take a cerebral approach to the missions. Therein lies the allure for me. The blood splatter is nice because I know I hit my target. However, the enjoyment comes from completing a mission against tough odds in an unknown environment.

If, in the game I have to take down a terrorist in order to save a hostage, so be it. I would hope that many would apply the same discrimination to real life. Violence should always be a final option, when all other tactics have failed.

Excellent...

So your post shows the disconnect from a "morbid curiosity of violence" I play war games and they can be very violent with high body counts, but I rather enjoy the strategic approaches just like you, and its mor about accomplishing something than focusing on death...death...death.

That's why I get bored with games like Doom 3 and whatnot. It's just kill, kill, and kill.

Games like the Rainbow 6 series, Ghost Recon series, are so enjoyable. It's not all about killing, it involves strategies and stealth.

Same with Counter-strike. It looks like all killing, but the huge base of it is the teamwork and strategies. In the end, it's almost like a complicated game of tag.

I think putting blood and violence in games is a way to show realism, to make it seem as real as possible yet setting the boundary which is fake, which is real.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. This is why T.V. has lost it's appeal for many of us!

I tend to agree with those who play mission-oriented games.

But here's a thought: what games, in general, do we play that aren't violent or don't simulate violence in an abstract way? Not many. Sports for example. Football is obviously "mock battle." The other day I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out. Har. Chess: battle simulation.

There was a point in human history where survival itself was a battle. After society began to stabilize, we started replacing that struggle with competitive sport as if we couldn't let go of those traits that allowed us to survive our early days. The Romans, of course, have the notorious distinction of partaking in the most violent of this type of behavior...one in which humans were regularly killed in the name of entertainment. Today, most of us would likely consider the Romans to have been barbaric. However, I can't help but wonder if an ancient Roman would defend the gladiatorial games by saying, "we go to watch the contest! We go to see the sword fighting and the historical reenactments, not simply to see death."

So here we are in the age of the computer; we can simulate any point in history, we can create anything our minds can come up with. What do we do with this marvelous tool? We simulate violent competition!

I don't pretend to have any answers, I am just thinking out loud here.

There are a few thing I have to add to this discussion.

There aren't all that many non-violent gaming genres.

• Puzzel/Casual games. There are a lot of these, many for free. It is the biggest gaming genre, but many don't count the as video-games at all. Generally have a bad reputation amongst hardcore gamers, although games like Peggle can be as addictive as WoW.
• Racing/simulation games. Racing games are popular, they have both challenge, competition and competitors, all of which makes a game good. Problem is that to properly enjoy this you need to spend extra money on a racing wheel. There are of course some simulators with battles, so there are the violent versions as well. On the other end there is stuff like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which arguably isn't a game at all. Anybody looking for a game would be disappointed with it. You need something extra to make a simulator a game, like racing or fighting.
• Adventure. Very simplistic, and skirting the border of not being a game at all. They are not very interactive, but can offer great story-lines and puzzles. Problem is that you can get the same from a good book but much cheaper.
• Platform jumpers. Most kids games are of this kind. Problem is that if you've played one you've played them all. No wonder kids want violent games when these are so monotonous and the other non-violent games are so complicated.
• Building games, everything from theme parks to cities to corporations. I myself have spent countless hours in the SimCity games building cities.
• Sports games. There are many of these. Problem is that there aren't that many sports which makes good video games. Most are more interesting to do for real.

What I'm getting at here is that for something to be a game it needs to have challenges, competitions and preferably have competitors. For it to be a video game it needs to be interactive as well. There aren't very many non-violent genres that fill these requirements. If you want some variation in your video gaming you quickly have to turn to violent games.

Did anybody notice of the part of the study I talked about earlier that said that for some kids violent games were therapeutic. It help give them an outlet for the anger and aggression.

Game developers remove gore and blood from games because it lowers the age rating. I wonder if this really is a good idea. Running up to somebody and shooting them in the face with a shotgun just to see them get up a while later might give a false sense of the true consequences of violence. How are kids supposed to respect guns if all they do is make you fall over?

Hmm good points Mr. Alpha.

Yes, now that you mention it, for some people playing games is probably one of their few ways of cooling themselves off. If for example-and I'm not insulting obese people here-there is an obese child who cannot exercise or physically release his anger, then he has very little choice to do it productively.

I'm seeing a trend from that list you just wrote Mr. Alpha. From the people I know that play games, most of the genres/games listed don't "count" as games...seems like you NEED violence for it to be counted as a game.

I think simulating violence incorrectly (for ex. shotgun'ing someone to the head and watching them get up) will mess someone up even more. It'll make them more curious to how it really is...if that's how it is in real life. If your going to go that far with violence, you might as well make it as real as possible...you've already crossed the line between violence and non-violence...might as well do it correctly then..?

That is an interesting observation. Just out of curiosity...can anyone point me to a few cases where they know that violent video games have caused a certain situation....like the person actually admitted that they wanted to test what they played?

There has been no actuall reported events of people stating video games made me do it, and most school shootings result in the death of the shooter leaving the family to try and blame something else, because in reality they just truely don't want to believe that their lil johnny went out to school just like any other day but instead this time shot and killed people, and then either comitted suicide, or were shot by police. Video games have become a scape goat, and in reality if there weren't violent games/ movies noone would watch them. Video games can't make people do things! just as a gun can't make you pull it's trigger.

And the the cases in which someone claims they commited an act/ crime because they thought it was real form a video game is just trying to slide the blame off thier shoulders onto someone elses, because let's face it, if you comitted a crime so brutal you knew you were going to be killed for punishment, you'd probably do anything , lie, cheat, beg you way out of it.

It doesn't really seem there is much of a case against typical violent games...I would be interested to know the impact of pornography as related to violence though. Of course, that is for another topic.

Actually there is one I know of. A Girl was killed in East TN when she was carjacked by a young male. His excuse when he was booked. "I was "playing" GTA". Circa Fall 2003 I believe.

I vaguely remember that event.

I've also seen an episode of Numbers (I think), and although Numbers is a fictional drama, they depicted teens playing a Doom-like game and they built a "map" of their school layout and they played the game and killed the "monsters," or students in this case. It goes to show, video games really put the power in the hands of good or evil...

Just something to spark some thought:

Imagine what our world/society would be like if there were no violent videogames/movies, or pornography...would violence and shootings like that still occur? I think thats what we should be asking ourselves. Getting rid of violent games and movies isn't really the best way out. Sure, it'll be a quick fix maybe, but it won't last forever. It'll be a temporary fix for a long time problem...

That's the question I was asking a few posts back. Humans have always found outlets for violent expression. Anyone who's read up on Shakespeare knows how violent some of his work is. Games and movies are just the latest incarnations of this propensity toward violence that appears to be "built-in."

Appears. I can't help wonder if society breeds this behavior, or if biology does. Has there ever been a culture in the world that didn't have some sort of violent expression...through ritual, sport, story, or religion? I can't think of a single one.

If the root of all of this does in fact turn out to be due to biology, in a way it makes sense. Look at other species; dogs and cats, for example. Two dogs will wrestle...growling, snapping, but all in "fun," as if "pretending" to fight; a loved pet dog would never actually have to fight. And from my experiences owning cats, an indoor cat will tend to play with toy mice more readily than an indoor/outdoor cat.* Is it because the indoor cat can't get out and hunt "for real?" Granted the indoor cat is bored, but the the way cats play generally simulates violence of some sort.

The point being, both dogs and cats evolved as predators; thus, they have built-in propensity for "mock" violence even in non-violent situations. Humans aren't predators per say; but we certainly aren't herbivores!




*Granted, my indoor cat is pretty crazy, so I'm not sure if he'd make a good candidate for this thought experiment!

We (humankind) have been killing each other since Cain murdered Able and that was a couple of milennia before Video Games and Pron came around. so honestly I think that it would not curb the violent nature of society. The only thing that has changed really since then is the Technology we use to kill each other.

I don't really think it has that much of an impact really as they play it and then later on in the day forget about it but that just might be my opinion!

One really violent game i have played though is MANHUNT i actually enjoyed it and can't wait for the sequel to be released by rockstar soon this year

I gew up watching Tom and Jerry cartoons, and later Itchy and Scratcy from the Simpson.

Now here is whats confusing to me.

Ive used sticks of dynamtie on cats, but they just dis-appear, not sure where they go but the never seem to come back.

When I hit my dog with a shovel in the face, his face never screws up, then goes back to normal. He just lies down and never moves.

I put my cat in the liquidiser, and watched it get chopped up. That was a week ago and its still in the liquidiser.

Now that I'm into gaming I've looked everywhere for a BFG and Plasma riffle, but cant seem to get one. Ebay dont seem to sell them. So guess I will just have to use a common old assault riffle (thinking AK47-SKU) or maybe machine pistol (Scorpion- SA 361). These will probably be my choice as they never run out of ammo ever.

Cant wait for them to be delivered so I can go out to use them and watch people respawn.

As I am concerned about global warming I've been trying to find a Chocobo everywhere, they are a realy good mode of transport. Ive been out on a regular basis trying to find one. I think that they are maybe extinct in the UK, as I've looked in my local phonebook and cant find a Chocobo trainer either.

That stuff is all on higher levels, bilko.

You are going to have to reach your objectives before you can get there.

Press on - I'm sure you can do it.

Oh, and don't worry about getting killed,

you'll be able to replay the level you are on.

At least, I think you can.

No respawns, sorry :\

To reply to Joe Brett:

You said that people play games and then later afterwards they just walk away from it. However, that really isn't the case with some people. They play it, and they probably think that's what it's like in real life, so they'll go on and think about it more and more, and someday it'll just "come out" and I think that's the main basis of argument for the people who want to restrict video games more tightly.

In my opinion people are just looking for something to blame.

The perpetrators of crime use the game as an excuse so the solicitor's can give a cause to the judge as to why they commited the crime, in the hope that the judge will then say something along the lines of "you poor thing, you were corrupted by the evil of the video game, we must get you some help". Well this is a load of ######, criminals will say anything to get their punishment reduced.

If we truly want to stop violence then we need to wrap our children up in cotton wool, keep them indoors at all time. Remove access to all forms of stimulation, keeping them in sterile containment so they dont see anything outside their own bubble.

Good old cartoons are a good place to start, there is an unreal amount of violence with no effect shown Animals and people are shown killed, then seconds later they come back to life with not a scratch on them.

Videos/movies/TV. This is also full of violence, from watching the news, local and international it mostly shows violence. so how do we educate our children that state sponsored murder (in the form of execution in the good old US of A) is ok, or by soldiers fighting overseas.

The animal world is also full of violence, with animals killing each other for food, for mates(partners), for teritory.

Yes man has come a long way, but millions of years of survival of the fittest is not going to be removed in just a couple of hundred, or few thousand.

So if someone has violent tendicies these will come to the surface at some point and its just a handy excuse to blame video games.