Senator, take a look at the substantial benefits games can provide.

[Liquidize105]

In a letter addressed to Senator Hillary Clinton, Steven Johnson, author of “Everything Bad is Good for You” (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573223077/qid=1122721166/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_sbs_1/102-9386658-9211368?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) writes:

Your current concern is over explicit sex in "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." Yet there's not much to investigate, is there? It should get rated appropriately, and that's that. But there's more to your proposed study: You want to examine how video games shape children's values and cognitive development.

Kids have always played games. A hundred years ago they were playing stickball and kick the can; now they're playing "World of Warcraft," "Halo 2" and "Madden 2005." And parents have to drag their kids away from the games to get them to do their algebra homework, but parents have been dragging kids away from whatever the kids were into since the dawn of civilization.
Read on. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-johnson27jul27,0,1432940.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)

Fan-friggin-tastic. In one fell swoop, Mr. Johnson's letter encapsulated the thoughts of every modern gamer has on the subject. Captol Hill needs to come to grips with the simple fact that games are just... games.

[if76]

I agree that playing violent videogames probably won't cause kids to commit real-world acts of violence (it certainly didn't have that effect on me), but I'm tired of the whole "crime statistics are lower now" argument.

This argument is just stupid and incredibly unscientific. This country has changed in inumerable ways since the 1970's (before videogames) and there are millions of other factors that could have contributed to the lowered statistics which could possibly make up for any rise in crime that videogames might be causing. Again I'm not saying videogames are responsible for any crimes, but the fact that crime happens to be down doesn't prove that they're not.

Maybe the DARE program is the cause. Maybe it's tougher sentencing laws acting as better detterants. Maybe lawyers are getting better at getting their clients off. Maybe it's the internet. Maybe it's mexican immigrants. Maybe it's just the fact that the way in which police report their statistics has changed. There are many reasons why the crime rate may have gone down.

I don't think this guy makes a very good case.

[Liquidize105]

You can turn your argument around and say that there are inumerable factors, therefore games can't possibly be the major cause of juvenile delinquency.

He makes perfect sense to me.

[lpmiller]

but the fact that crime happens to be down doesn't prove that they're not.

Follow it through, though. It does make it much less likely that videogames cause any violence. Stats would not go down at a time when games are at their highest saturation point, would they? Which is in fact the argument they are making. They are not saying videogames lower violence.

This guys book is pretty good, too, I give it a thumb or two up.

[Gel214th]

Considering Hillary doesn't really care about the kids, she's doing this for political mileage, the letter really isn't going to do much good is it?

EA Ubisoft and others should get together and do an Ad campaign to end this nonsense once and for all. You can be CERTAIN that nowadays if Hollywood ever came under this kind of fire we'd definitely be hearing their side of it on every talk show, and seeing ads and actors on television segments.

What's the game industry doing? Curling up and playing dead it seems.

[bait]

The thing that needs to change is this: A lot of people see ALL video games as being made for children... a fact exacerbated by the immaturity of most games released these days. Parents need to quit viewing ALL games as being ok for kids just as all movies are not ok for kids.

GTA-SA is not ok for kids. It was rated correctly...not for kids. The Hot coffee mod is a non-issue because it's a mod. The game was modified from it's original form through unliscensed components.

That's like an inmate suing a spoon maker because someone modified the spoon into a shank and stabbed him. It's ridiculous.

[abso]

In order to tie the crime rate to video games there would have to be a study showing a correlation between the two, which neither side has really done in a non-biased study.

Regardless, I do appreciate the attention video games are getting in the general media. However, as with most topics, it is presented in as sensationalist a manner as possible to ensure ratings, thus eliminating a real message from being distributed.

[IndependentGMR]

Too bad she probably won't even read it.

[Wonka]

I agree that playing violent videogames probably won't cause kids to commit real-world acts of violence (it certainly didn't have that effect on me), but I'm tired of the whole "crime statistics are lower now" argument.

This argument is just stupid and incredibly unscientific. This country has changed in inumerable ways since the 1970's (before videogames) and there are millions of other factors that could have contributed to the lowered statistics which could possibly make up for any rise in crime that videogames might be causing. Again I'm not saying videogames are responsible for any crimes, but the fact that crime happens to be down doesn't prove that they're not.

Maybe the DARE program is the cause. Maybe it's tougher sentencing laws acting as better detterants. Maybe lawyers are getting better at getting their clients off. Maybe it's the internet. Maybe it's mexican immigrants. Maybe it's just the fact that the way in which police report their statistics has changed. There are many reasons why the crime rate may have gone down.

I don't think this guy makes a very good case.


1st of all I think that to assume that games have to be proven to be non-harmful rather than the other way around is inherently an unfair assumption to start from. Also, I think that the crux of the "crime stats are lower" argument is NOT to claim any direct insight into the relationship (or lack thereof) between games and violence, but instead to say that there isn't much new violence to account for in the 1st place. In other words The argument is NOT: "These games are not causing violence because there is less violence." and INSTEAD the argument actually goes like this: "Why are we even looking for new sources of violence when there is less violence than there used to be?".

In that sense, I find it to be a pretty strong argument.


I've read this guys book, and other gamers should probably read it too. There is a lot more to it than just "crime stats are lower", and its actually a pretty fun little read, and the guy makes some interesting and compelling arguments for games, television and movies while challenging a lot of things that people traditionally just assume to be true (such as the common assumption that video games and television are pure mind rot).

[Melonman0]

I heard it was a good book. I seen him on The Daily Show and he seems to be an avid gamer.

[if76]

Follow it through, though. It does make it much less likely that videogames cause any violence. Stats would not go down at a time when games are at their highest saturation point, would they? Which is in fact the argument they are making. They are not saying videogames lower violence.


Ok and my point is that stats may be going down for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with videogames while they still could be higher than they would be were videogames not around. Let's say that smaller number of police per citizen reduces the reported crime rate by 80% while videogames increase the crime rate by 10%. In this scenario the crime rate is still going down but videogames are a cause of crime.

Again I'm not making any judgements about the issue only about this particular argument. It's as weak as Jack Thompson.

[mister_slim]

It would be interesting to pull together statistics for Europe and Asia, crime rates, gun ownership, drug policy, videogame censorship and availability, and so on.

Anyway, the ESA needs to get their act together.

[Nuggsy]

if76,

You make some good observations but the fact that this guy says the crime rate has fallen since 1970 (which, as you suggested, was before video games) says that before video games were available, crime was on the downward. What should be explored is if there is any kind of current trend. If crimes start to spike as video games became increasingly violent, then we could start to hypothesize. Crime rates, by and large, have always been seen as cyclical anyhow. They dip and fall about every seven years, I believe (knew that CJ degree would be good for something someday) - not that I'm the definitive source on the matter. If you could compare the rates and trends as they were before violent video games, and then do some kind of comparison study when violent video games were available, then you may or may not see some correlations.

Again I'm not making any judgements about the issue only about this particular argument. It's as weak as Jack Thompson.

The above statement, however, is a crock of shit and you know it. Jack Thompson has been for censorship since the early nineties and argues that he is protecting our liberties through proactive censorship. If the developers stop making these games now then the government will have no need to kick down your door and arrest you for letting a minor play them. That's the argument that he uses. Thompson wants a payday, it's as simple as that. I'm not saying that this guy doesn't either, but he certainly isn't anywhere near as aggressive as Thompson. He also doesn't do anything crazy such as infer that gamers are pedophiles.

[XenonCJ]

A ***90 MILLION DOLLAR*** STUDY TO SEE HOW VIDEO GAMES EFFECT CHILDREN!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF??? Good god.... No that in and of itself is a trillion times more offensive to me than any "hot coffe'" mod...

What a collosal waste of money.... Imagine if instead that money but put to other uses... Say, oh I don't know, more text books for kids, cancer research, or financing a new "X-Prize" type contest...

uggg...

[abso]

I wonder if I could sue the government for negligence regarding its appropriations... Would be a very media heavy case for sure.

[Nuggsy]

I wonder if I could sue the government for negligence regarding its appropriations... Would be a very media heavy case for sure.


Best idea I've heard all day.