ESA Studies: No link between Violence and Videogames

[bapenguin]

Gamesindustry.biz (http://www.gamesindustry.biz[/url) has an article up regarding a recent study (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12521) done by the ESA. In fact, it was multiple independent studies that found there was no linkage between violent video games and aggressive behavior.

A study conducted in June 2005 by Williams, Dmitri & Skoric, Marko, entitled "Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an Online Game" set out to determine the effects, if any, of engaging in a violent Massively Multiplayer Online Game. They wrote: "A longitudinal study of an online violent video game with a control group tested for changes in aggressive cognitions and behaviours. The findings did not support the assertion that a violent game will cause substantial increases in real-world aggression."
In turn, one study found there are probably benefits to gaming.

The American Behaviour Scientist study: "The good, the bad, or the ugly? A multilevel perspective on electronic game effects" revealed that "there is reason to believe that interaction with electronic games actually might offer some positive benefits. The researchers added "we should be mindful of the possibility that available literature is biased by the historical reticence of some journals to publish null findings."
Interesting stuff. I think the fact remains that there are too many variables in ANY case to say that video games do or do not cause violent behavior. It's not any one thing that causes someone to go postal.

[HarverdGrad]

Bah...
After playing driving games on the Xbox, I drive much more aggressive if I drive anywhere afterwards. Everything on the road seems to be going very slow- which makes me impatient. Ya, the effect wears off shortly after... but it's there. Same deal with Grand Theft Auto. I felt like disobeying traffic signals after playing long sessions of that game. Once again, impatience.

I agree that it isn't just one variable. Take someone that is drug induced, or sleep deprived... I can see someone going postal.

Regards!

[fitbabits]

And the anti-gaming lobbyists reading that read it as:

kdjf'lkj woief oif rgoiuhgoirgok oiae rg'oia erg LA LA LA LA LA!

I often wonder if these studies are of any benefit at all. I mean, for every study that shows no links between videogames and violence, there's another study being published that shows a 'definitive' link between the two. I believe there's a unique relationship between a certain type of gamer and a certain type of game that cannot be qauntified by any study.

Another thing about these things is that they're all 'point-in-time' studies. By which I mean that how you feel now may be wildly different to how you feel about the same thing tomorrow (or the next day, etc.).

[Klade]

Personally I'm of the opinion that video games cause no more behavioral changes then books do. Most of these studies when comparing forms of entertainment only take into account video games, music, tv, and movies. They never look at books. And usually they come back with some weak corrilation between whatever type of behavior they are trying to prove. And that usually comes from using very unscientific or methods known to allow for biases. A good look at books would also show the same corrilation in my opinion. But they are all just trying to get some attention from the media bandwagon to get funding for their next project, so they never point out that its the same weak corrilation exists as reading a book.

[fitbabits]

Picking up on what Klade said (good points, by the way), I give you the following example of how movies can affect one's behavior:

Everyone knows the movie Braveheart and the story told within. Well, I had the pleasure of watching the movie in a large theater in my homeland (Scotland) and the sheer venom and hatred displayed toward anyone of an English persuasion by the predominantly Scottish audience following that movie was staggering.

So to say that entertainment in general doesn’t affect the mood or behavior of the audience is rather shortsighted.

[madmossy]

Jack Tompson's gonna enjoy this ;p

[daedal]

Jack Tompson's gonna enjoy this ;p
Just what I was thinking, but he'll probably just call them ass-holes and move on. :rolleyes:

[Librum]

I don't think there's any question that all entertainment provokes an emotional response to some degree or another - that's one of the reasons we seek to experience it. But, just like watching, to quote another example, 'Saving Private Ryan' didn't make me start shooting people with German surnames, nor does losing at a round of BF1942, despite how worked up I might get about it.

But are there some people that would do something rash after an emotionally charged experience? There are people who will kill someone over a 'friendly' poker game or assault someone over their favorite professional sports team. If someone is really concerned about people behaving violently, there are far more common and endemic problems with humans in general that cause that, with video games simply being a convenient target of the week.

So comparing them to books, movies, even speeches, is definitely a good place to show how they're no better, or worse, than other forms of entertainment which can evoke emotional responses in people.

[abso]

Regardless of any type of scientific link between violence and games in either direction, kids should not be playing M rated games. It is the responsibility of the parent to be involved in their kids life. They should know what their kid is doing. Further more, they should be modeling good behavior. Violence isn't caused simply from playing a game. Lack of communication about the consequences, both to oneself and society, that contributes to the problem. For all of this country's openness at tackling other country's problems, the minute we turn inwards, we try to find something to blame other than ourselves. Fortunately, I think this hate on games is a fad. It's proliferation in the media will serve it's purpose, namely, to bring awareness to parents that the video game console is not a substitute for a parent. Besides, there will be something new to hate on at some point anyway, there always is.

[Schnoogs]

sheer venom and hatred displayed toward anyone of an English persuasion by the predominantly Scottish audience following that movie was staggering.

Good to know that the Scotts were just finally learning about their history in the late 1990's.

Rolls eyes.

[fitbabits]

Good to know that the Scotts were just finally learning about their history in the late 1990's.

Rolls eyes.
It's Scots, with one T! Let's just say that those feelings were repressed for a long time and the movie was simply a reminder. Smart arse.

[JazGalaxy]

I think the operative word in a good many of these debates is the word "makes".

Pro videogame violence people oftentimes cite that "violent videogames don't "make" me go (insert silly violent act here, like "take an m16 and shoot up city hall). Of course not. I'm quite anti-videogame sadism, and I don't for a second contend that videogames MAKE you do anything. Your eyes don't glaze over and you can't control yourself while you surrender to the subliminal messages transmitted through the game. Doom didn't MAKE those kids shoot up columbine. But I think that people who don't think it contributed to their behavior are being willfully ignorant. I mean, they pasted faces of their classmates on the heads of badguys and shot them up repeatedly for weeks. It's not as though the police just happened to find doom sitting on the floor of one of their closets under a pile of old laundry. Working with children on a regular basis, I routinely find links between violent media and their behaviors. What's more, the kids who's parents allow them to view violent media act conciderably more aggressively. This isn't scientific, it's just noticeable. I feel very much like it's the same situation as people (george bush) who say there's no such thing as global warming when the weather is just plain NOTICEABLY wonky. You don't need scientific equipment to know that you haven't worn a jacket all winter for years, and you used to have to wear one all the time...

Much the same way, it's hard to believe people who say that GTA does not affect children when they're running around air shooting at eachother and talking about how they're playing "GTA". (I made that instance up, but you know what I'm talking about...)

[JediSanf]

It's Scots, with one T! Let's just say that those feelings were repressed for a long time and the movie was simply a reminder. Smart arse.

You think that's bad? Try just mentioning the name Cromwell to an Irishman. And then duck because he will be throwing a punch.

What I never understood was why we don't see these arguments over professional sports. Ever year after the World Cup, World Series, NBA Championship, NCAA Championships, we get a least one riot. To my knowledge no groups of gamers has ever gone on an alcohol fueld blood rage rampage after a heated LAN party. And I'm pretty sure it would've made headlines if they did.

I do start eyeballing gaps in oncoming traffic after playing GTA though.

[Mrbunchypants]

I think the operative word in a good many of these debates is the word "makes".

Pro videogame violence people oftentimes cite that "violent videogames don't "make" me go (insert silly violent act here, like "take an m16 and shoot up city hall). Of course not. I'm quite anti-videogame sadism, and I don't for a second contend that videogames MAKE you do anything. Your eyes don't glaze over and you can't control yourself while you surrender to the subliminal messages transmitted through the game. Doom didn't MAKE those kids shoot up columbine. But I think that people who don't think it contributed to their behavior are being willfully ignorant. I mean, they pasted faces of their classmates on the heads of badguys and shot them up repeatedly for weeks. It's not as though the police just happened to find doom sitting on the floor of one of their closets under a pile of old laundry. Working with children on a regular basis, I routinely find links between violent media and their behaviors. What's more, the kids who's parents allow them to view violent media act conciderably more aggressively. This isn't scientific, it's just noticeable. I feel very much like it's the same situation as people (george bush) who say there's no such thing as global warming when the weather is just plain NOTICEABLY wonky. You don't need scientific equipment to know that you haven't worn a jacket all winter for years, and you used to have to wear one all the time...

Much the same way, it's hard to believe people who say that GTA does not affect children when they're running around air shooting at eachother and talking about how they're playing "GTA". (I made that instance up, but you know what I'm talking about...)


It all comes back to parents. Now yes I do think that retailors do have a part to play in this. There part is to let the parents know whats in the game and why they might not think it's good for young ones to watch. In the end it all come back to the point of the parents. And what they are passing on to there kids.

As myself about to be a Dad, and know alot about games. I find my self thinking. " Is this game right to even have is the house?" As most kids learn by watching for the first few years, I am deeply concered about what they are going to be watching on the TV or computer screen. As I watched my neice grown up it was very intresting to see that she knew how to open and close the cd tray on the computer and how to replace the cd in there. and that was just after she was able to walk.....

ok i'll shutup now. :D

[Klade]

I think the operative word in a good many of these debates is the word "makes".

Pro videogame violence people oftentimes cite that "violent videogames don't "make" me go (insert silly violent act here, like "take an m16 and shoot up city hall). Of course not. I'm quite anti-videogame sadism, and I don't for a second contend that videogames MAKE you do anything. Your eyes don't glaze over and you can't control yourself while you surrender to the subliminal messages transmitted through the game. Doom didn't MAKE those kids shoot up columbine. But I think that people who don't think it contributed to their behavior are being willfully ignorant. I mean, they pasted faces of their classmates on the heads of badguys and shot them up repeatedly for weeks. It's not as though the police just happened to find doom sitting on the floor of one of their closets under a pile of old laundry. Working with children on a regular basis, I routinely find links between violent media and their behaviors. What's more, the kids who's parents allow them to view violent media act conciderably more aggressively. This isn't scientific, it's just noticeable. I feel very much like it's the same situation as people (george bush) who say there's no such thing as global warming when the weather is just plain NOTICEABLY wonky. You don't need scientific equipment to know that you haven't worn a jacket all winter for years, and you used to have to wear one all the time...

Much the same way, it's hard to believe people who say that GTA does not affect children when they're running around air shooting at eachother and talking about how they're playing "GTA". (I made that instance up, but you know what I'm talking about...)

I agree that it can affect people. The same way books can or music or tv etc. I don't think it effects kids more then other media and I've never seen anything to make think otherwise. To point a finger at video games because they are new to the arena of entertainment is silly.

[if76]

I think the operative word in a good many of these debates is the word "makes".

Pro videogame violence people oftentimes cite that "violent videogames don't "make" me go (insert silly violent act here, like "take an m16 and shoot up city hall). Of course not. I'm quite anti-videogame sadism, and I don't for a second contend that videogames MAKE you do anything. Your eyes don't glaze over and you can't control yourself while you surrender to the subliminal messages transmitted through the game. Doom didn't MAKE those kids shoot up columbine. But I think that people who don't think it contributed to their behavior are being willfully ignorant. I mean, they pasted faces of their classmates on the heads of badguys and shot them up repeatedly for weeks. It's not as though the police just happened to find doom sitting on the floor of one of their closets under a pile of old laundry. Working with children on a regular basis, I routinely find links between violent media and their behaviors. What's more, the kids who's parents allow them to view violent media act conciderably more aggressively. This isn't scientific, it's just noticeable. I feel very much like it's the same situation as people (george bush) who say there's no such thing as global warming when the weather is just plain NOTICEABLY wonky. You don't need scientific equipment to know that you haven't worn a jacket all winter for years, and you used to have to wear one all the time...

Much the same way, it's hard to believe people who say that GTA does not affect children when they're running around air shooting at eachother and talking about how they're playing "GTA". (I made that instance up, but you know what I'm talking about...)

As the above posters have said, all media effects people in some way. What gets the ESA and people like me so ticked off is that a lot of people want to treat videogames differently from movies, tv, and books. I don't think anyone would say that playing a violent video game effects someone less than watching a violent movie. We just want games to have the same treatment the other forms of media have.

[Goronmon]

IMO, it comes down to the individual than a certain media to determine how a person is influenced. Trying to make statements completely supporting one side or the other just doesn't seem to work.

[Neosho]

IMO, it comes down to the individual than a certain media to determine how a person is influenced. Trying to make statements completely supporting one side or the other just doesn't seem to work.

Indeed, which only further brings us around to the role that parents need to play in their children's lives.

Parent, and we don't have to worry about kids shooting up schools. It's that simple.

And as a side note, when I'm done watching "Faster" (Motogp movie) I have the desire to ride faster. Same after i read Twist of the Wrist (Book written by Keith Code, a motogp racer). Media will effect people, it's the nature of life. It's up to us to figure out what's acceptable for us adults and the parents to figure out what's acceptable for their kids.

[abso]

As the above posters have said, all media effects people in some way. What gets the ESA and people like me so ticked off is that a lot of people want to treat videogames differently from movies, tv, and books. I don't think anyone would say that playing a violent video game effects someone less than watching a violent movie. We just want games to have the same treatment the other forms of media have.

Ah, but there IS a distinction between violent games and other violent media, and that is the level of interactivity. Books, movies, tv, and music are passive forms. You don't control what is sent to your senses outside of having it on or not. With games, you control a character. You control the actions of that character. I'm not going to argue whether this promotes violent behavior or is a positive outlet for aggression. However, the direct interaction is what makes games a different type of medium than existing media formats.

[JazGalaxy]

Ah, but there IS a distinction between violent games and other violent media, and that is the level of interactivity. Books, movies, tv, and music are passive forms. You don't control what is sent to your senses outside of having it on or not. With games, you control a character. You control the actions of that character. I'm not going to argue whether this promotes violent behavior or is a positive outlet for aggression. However, the direct interaction is what makes games a different type of medium than existing media formats.


exactly. And in this I'm not arguing for or against violent videogames, just trying to clear up terms...

Videogames ARE different than books or movies because because of their interactive element. You are told a story in a book, you are shown a story in a movie, you ENACT a story in a video game. Not to mention they stories they tell are differnet on a fundamental level. That is, unless you've recently read a book that went...

"Duke Nukem turned and shot a pig cop in the face. Blood spattered everywhere. Duke ran down the hall and shot another pig cop. Blood oozed down the walls, his bloody footprints following him wherever he went. Then Duke shot another pig cop. Blood spurted all over Duke. Then Duke rounded the corner and shot a pig cop in the face. Blood flew up in the air. Then Duke shot a pig cop in the face. Blood squirted forth. Duke saw a stripper and paid her 5 dollars. "Shake it baby!" he said. Then he shot her in the face."

and so on and so forth.

[Spigot]

Interesting stuff. I think the fact remains that there are too many variables in ANY case to say that video games do or do not cause violent behavior. It's not any one thing that causes someone to go postal.

I was actually told today by one of my supervisors at work that I'm concidered the first person at work who would go postal. I mean, compared to the rest of the misfits there, I'm downright grounded in reality...

I told him that he doesn't have to worry about anything because I play violent videogames to blow off steam... that just got me a strange look and he backed away slowly :)

Sigh... some people...

[Spigot]

What I never understood was why we don't see these arguments over professional sports. Ever year after the World Cup, World Series, NBA Championship, NCAA Championships, we get a least one riot. To my knowledge no groups of gamers has ever gone on an alcohol fueld blood rage rampage after a heated LAN party. And I'm pretty sure it would've made headlines if they did.


Amen. I agree that you can get into an excited mood after playing an action game or a racing game and that may or may not influence your behaviour immediatly afterwards. On the opposite side, many games make you think or may even calm you down (Ico, anyone?).

It is funny how something (in this case, videogaming) is said to tear apart our society even though it can't be conclusively proven yet something that does lead to violent outbursts (sports and hooligans) is accepted as part of the norm.

[YodaMouse]

In Los Angeles there is a law that has been strictly enforced for the past 10 years that if a minor is seen on the street during regular school hours, a police officer can question and subsequently arrest the individual if he/she can't prove that their school is not in session.

This is complicated by the fact that Los Angeles has a multi-session framework for its public schools. I myslef have been repeatedly harrassed by LAPD and once detained. In all cases I had just forgotten my high school ID. (Thankfully I'm now 27 and have no fear...)

I ask you, is this any less emotionally disturbing to a 14 year old than let's say watching video game pedestrians get hit? Think about it. I was cuffed to the same chair as a PROSTITUTE for god's sake. And after everything was cleared up the cop had the nerve to tell me that he hoped I learned my lesson. Bastard...

[JazGalaxy]

Amen. I agree that you can get into an excited mood after playing an action game or a racing game and that may or may not influence your behaviour immediatly afterwards. On the opposite side, many games make you think or may even calm you down (Ico, anyone?).

It is funny how something (in this case, videogaming) is said to tear apart our society even though it can't be conclusively proven yet something that does lead to violent outbursts (sports and hooligans) is accepted as part of the norm.

Actually most people who are against overly violent videogames are also against overy violent sports. The NFL, for example, does indeed regulate the image of violence within the sport, and takes great pains to make sure that agressive behavior such as hard hits are NOT played up for attention. This all went into effect circa 95 or so.

As for some games making you rowdy and other games calming you down, I really have no issue with either of those games. What I do have an issue with is the sadistic aspect of it. There is a difference. I'm a martial artist, and I will defend martial arts as both and art and a sport until my last breath. Some people call it barbaric, but those people are generally uninformed and when I explain it to them, they understand and sometimes want to start learning it. That being said, there are things about fighitng which are nither art NOR sport. THose things are disgusting and have no place in a civilized society. Bum fighting isn't an art or a sport. No rules Cage fighting isn't an art or a sport. Mortal Kombat style "till the death" tournament fighting is not an art or a sport. Etc.

A great many games that are coming out these days aren't art, or game, but just meanspirited sadism. That should not be encouraged as entertainment as it's entirely dangerous. Just read about Roman society if you want to know where such things will lead.

[YodaMouse]

JazGalaxy, I couldn't disagree more.

People don't realize how the ability to distinguish between make-believe and reality is intristically part of the human psyche. If this was not the case, playing cops and robbers when you're 11 years old would be banned by adults. Playing with barbies would be illegal.

And let's not forget our European neighbors. Explicity content in television is not censored whatsoever. Neither are violent video games. Yet, America has more crime. Hmph... Maybe because we blame our problems on idiotic things like violent games or the lack of prayer in schools... Gawd...

[Spigot]

It's interesting. At work today I had to actually take away the various Bond shooters and Splinter Cell games from the people I look after because we know for a fact that these guys will internalize and fantasize about the relatively realistic violence.

So here I am, the guy who has a blast playing GTA and who constantly rants about people needing to stop their blaming of videogames for society's ills... Here I am and I'm having to explaing to these guys that they can't play violent videogames because they might make them violent.

Granted, these guys have actual diagnosed conditions that have led us to do this, but I still felt like a bit of a hypocrite. And these weren't even games that are what could be concidered overly sadistic. Heck, they're all rated Teen. But it was the context of the violence in them (as opposed to, say, the violence in a Pokemon game) that was our concern. That, and the FPS aspect of the Bond games was much too visceral for them.

But I guess that in this case we were acting in a kind of parental role in limiting their exposure to violence, which is the way it should be. We weren't saying "ALL VIOLENT GAMES ARE BAD!" like most of the doomsayers do. We were saying that these particular violent games were not appropriate for these particular guys for a reason, which is an attitude I wish more people would adopt.

So now I guess I don't feel like a hypocrite anymore. It was just difficult for me to argue against my usual position in that situation.

[YodaMouse]

Spigot,

I really don't think it's hypocritical of you to prevent people who--as I believe you said--are succeptible towards certain violent stimuli. You simply show symptoms of reason and accountability. I wish more people would.

I guess my whole argument is that "reasonable" and well balanced individuals, wether it be adults or kids, can clearly distinguish between reality and fantasy. I take it you work with people who are emotionally or psychologically unbalanced. I think in that context it would be irresbonsible not to prevent them from being exposed to dangerous input.

So don't feel bad. If I had a psychotic nine year old son who tried to set everything afire, I probably wouldn't let him play a game called "Arsonator" either. :o)

[Spigot]

Thanks Yodamouse!

I had an even more interesting occurence today at work where one of my coworkers came up to me asking if I'd ever played Pokemon.

It turns out that one of the people there had been playing Pokemon. What could possibly be wrong about that? Well, this person had concocted an entire fantasy story in his mind that bordered on the pornographic, which he narrated to us as he went about playing the game.

So now I have to try to decide whether to ban Pokemon, of all games. It just goes to show you that it's not necessarily the game subject or depiction of events that triggers these kind of behaviours. All you need is the the right (or wrong, as it were) mindset and you can turn something as harmless as Pokemon into an absolutely vile thing.

I don't think I'll ever think of the Pokemon games the same way... *shudder*

Granted, with his kind of, shall we say, "issues", I'm sure that he could somehow make Tetris into a twisted fantasy that would give even Kelegacy pause... :)

This is what I get for being the resident gamer at work (http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=2001-11-14&res=l). I get asked to deal with all of these crazy issues. Ah well. Keeps life interesting.

[JazGalaxy]

JazGalaxy, I couldn't disagree more.

People don't realize how the ability to distinguish between make-believe and reality is intristically part of the human psyche. If this was not the case, playing cops and robbers when you're 11 years old would be banned by adults. Playing with barbies would be illegal.

And let's not forget our European neighbors. Explicity content in television is not censored whatsoever. Neither are violent video games. Yet, America has more crime. Hmph... Maybe because we blame our problems on idiotic things like violent games or the lack of prayer in schools... Gawd...

Then I encourage you to take a trip even further east to the country of Japan, where the prime minister actually had to get on tv and tell the men of the country to stop mass raping young girls on trains. The concept of train rape has become so popular there, and media so flooded with it, that professionals have come to the baffled conclusion that a number of japanese men no longer see anything wrong with it. This is, mind you, where entire train cars of men will rape a girl. The prime minister rationalized it as best he could by saying that he thought that perhaps the fact that everyone was doing it... a whole train car... made the men feel as though there was nothing wrong.

It has nothing to do with the idea that there are "normal" people and "crazy" people, and everything to do with the fact that repeated subjection to an element will deaden your sensitivity toward that element.

"normal" and "crazy" are labels slapped on others by individuals who can't, or refuse, to rationalize their behavior. My dad thinks people who have piercings of any kind are crazy. He'll rant about it for hours on end. His face will screw all up and he'll talk about how sick it is and ask repeatedly why anyone would want that. Are these people really crazy? of course not. They simply have been fed an entirely different meal of values and ideas. Now, my dad would tell you that everyone has an inherent sense of self protection that keeps them from "mutilating their bodies" and swear by it. These people are just perverted wackos, he will say. That doesn't make it true. I argue that a someone who sits there and plays violent and sadistic videogames ("KILL ALL HATIANS" "FINISH HIM" "FATALITY! OUTSTANDING!" etc) is being fed a meal of values and ideas that can lead to behaviors just as radical as getting piercings all over your body. Gamers like to talk about how "I play games and I'm PERFECTLY NORMAL!!!" but yet you see them ranting and virutally yelling on message boards all the time. They create new and perverted terminologies for everything from something being good, to something being bad. They talk about how angry and frustrated they get when they don't succeed at a game, and abotu throwing controllers and breaking them... (seriously... who breaks their controller? But I've heard about people breaking entire CONSOLES). You get on xbox live and they yell and cuss and even resort to racial slander.

I don't for a second think that videogames CAUSE this, but I think being immersed in gaming culture very well can.

In the newest issue of OXM a guy is talking about some new 360 game about time travel. It's a page long write up, and the guy spends about half of it talking abotu how you can freeze time, take a guys gun, blow him to peices and then walk through the chunks for his body. He says it twice. He has an entire game to talk about, and this is the selling point he chooses to focus on.

I say that's disturbing.

[Spigot]

Hey Jaz,

You have a few interesting points in your latest post but you also shoot yourself in the foot, argument-wise, with your whole "My dad doesn't like piercings but that doesn't make what he says true" story. I think that you're mistaking gamer culture with the culture of today's youth and how it is wrapped up in technology. I'll get back to this in a bit.

If you haven't broken a controller, you haven't been gaming long enough. While I haven't actually snapped a controller in half, I remember tossing my NES controller across the room after dying for the 18th time back when I was younger. Do I do it anymore? No. Do I still get mad and yell at the TV when I've died for the 18th time and have to do that whole section ALL OVER AGAIN? Sure. It's called blowing off steam when you get frustrated.

I agree that many of the gaming magazines these days DO try to hard to play up the visceral aspects of a game and really aren't worth reading. I remember a few that came out in the late nineties that were so poorly written as to be unreadable yet you'd find people bemoaning the fact that they were inevitably cancelled. This doesn't make them good magazines. They are just the crass ones that will always sell and appeal to either people with no taste or those teens who think that being crass = being cool.

What you're missing in your argument about Live and the culture in general is the whole concept of mob mentality (that's your Japanese Rape Train example in a nutshell) and the aspect of anonimity of the internet. I'll talk about the latter as mob mentality doesn't really matter that much in our greater discussion on this thread.

People tend to behave VERY differently on the net than they do in reality. If you can sit there in the safety of your living room or bedroom and hurl profanities and such across the ether and bother someone without anyone knowing who you are or punching you in the face, well, some people take that as free license to do so. Again, this doesn't make it right. But it also doesn't mean that this same person isn't a perfectly polite person to those he meets face to face, even after having spent his entire evening being a dick online.

I'm reading Freakonomics and I find it is a very good study on why people behave the way they do in various circumstances and how incentives influence their behaviours.

I also can understand how many of these aspects may disturb you personally. That's perfectly fine. It may be something you need to just get a thicker skin about though. There are many people who play the games that you find disturbing who are perfectly adjusted people.

Ah, I don't know where I'm going with this post. I just wanted to respond to a few of your comments. Keep them coming though! It's nice to have someone who will challenge the rest of us.

[JazGalaxy]

my problems with the industry don't necessarily have to do with my being disturbed, or having a thin skin. Indeed, as an artist, I recently watched an anatomy video in which they took a recently deeased cadaver and flayed the entire thing on stage in front of an audiance of medical students. Cross sections of the brain were attained by slicing the brain through a grocery store meat slicer. So... yeah.. it's not as though I have a weak stomache or something.

Rather, I'm simply a young guy who spends a lot of time with children through work and sees how media affects them on a regular basis. More than that, I'm someone who fully gets to see that parents don't and will not take care of their kids, and also that capitalism is a system that really does not care one wit about the well being of it's customers.

I've been playing games all my life, and I grew up from Atari to NES to SNES to PSX to N64 to Dreamcast to PS2 to XBOX and soon to XBOX360. I'm a hardcore gamer who knows pretty much every game sitting on the store shelf, who made it, and it's average review score. I know who all the players are in the industry, I know what companies are hot, I know what companies used to be hot, and I know which companies are ice cold. This being the case, it's not as though I hate games, hate gaming, or fail to recognize gamings position as a legitimate entertainment format.

I know that games are made by companies, and I trust companies about as far as I can throw the buildings they work out of. Capitalism pretty much dictates that whatever makes money is good. Morals or ethics don't enter into the equation. For this reason game companies try to sell games that they KNOW kids want but are not old enough to handle, to them. This is conclusively proven in the Federal Investigation into the videogame industry which published it's report in 2000. By game companies own internal papers they ADMIT to targeting mature games to underaged gamers. This is no more conscionable than than the cigarette companies trying to get homeless people and poor people addicted to cigarettes and trying to pretend that they don't cause heath concerns. Yet instead of saying "hey, games industry, stop making a bad name for we gamers" gamers try to defend gaming to it's bitter end saying that ALL games are good and ALL games are art.

The creators of Leisure Suit Larry were in direct contact with the ESRB in order to fit as much adult material as possible inside the game without giving it an Adult rating. This isn't that they had something to say, and weren't going to compromise their message... this isnt' that that they don't believe in censorship... this isn't even that they are extremely liberal and don't feel as though the content is anything to be worked up about. This is people deliberately trying to cram as much smut into their game as possible. That's not art. It's not even mature.

Games like Postal 2 take offenses to new heights with things like blatant racism (against muslims), rampant sadism, and even just plain masogyny. The letters page that they used to have up on the site was almost nauseating with letters from people thaking running with scissors for making a game where they can murder "ragheads" and "queers". The mods for the game clearly show a startlingly dangerous mysogynistic bent.

When you see a little kid playing Grand Theft Auto, beating up a woman and tellign her to "die you fucking bitch!" you begin to realize that there are things at stake which companies do not care about.

[Spigot]

Well, I didn't mean to slander your gamer status. I just wanted to see if you were looking at this from the same angle as the rest of us.

Of course all games are not art. This is like saying that all movies are art or all music is art. Some of it is. Some of it is pure commercial fluff. And some of it is like your average shock rocker. They know that they'll get all sorts of publicity for being 'offensive' and the people who take their bait and rant and rave about it end up giving them more free publicity than they could ever buy.

I am not defending Postal 2. It has never interested me in the least. I remember trying the first one out way back when and not being terribly impressed with it either. There is such a thing as trying TOO hard to offend people and it ends up looking pathetic.

JazGalaxy said: When you see a little kid playing Grand Theft Auto, beating up a woman and tellign her to "die you fucking bitch!" you begin to realize that there are things at stake which companies do not care about.

I do take issue with this statement. Sure, the companies don't care but the point is that THE GAME IS NOT MADE FOR KIDS! Sure, kids think it's cool and will want to play it and often do, but frankly, it's like horror movies. Some people love them, some people hate them and most kids want to watch them. Some kids get to watch them and some don't. Is this the fault of the company that made the horror movie or is this the fault of the parents who don't know or care about the media their child is watching?

I know it's a bit of a pat answer and I know the realities are that you can't know EVERYTHING about what your child is doing or watching or playing, but in this case I would point the finger directly at the parents. It's not the companies job to make sure little Timmy doesn't play. The retailers can make sure that Timmy doesn't buy the game but if Timmy's mom goes ahead and buys it for him anyway and doesn't bother to watch and see what the game is like, well, don't be pointing the finger up the chain there.

Not to mention that the above child from your example probably has other issues aside from just turning on GTA and turning into an explitive spewing misogynist. I would never let a young kid play GTA unsupervised. I wouldn't have a problem if they just wanted to drive the cars around or deliver pizzas. I would just make sure they only play it when I'm around.

JazGalaxy said:I'm simply a young guy who spends a lot of time with children through work and sees how media affects them on a regular basis. More than that, I'm someone who fully gets to see that parents don't and will not take care of their kids, and also that capitalism is a system that really does not care one wit about the well being of it's customers.

I won't argue that. Welcome to the 21st century. I think it's time that people realized that companies DON'T care about much more than the bottom line and that it's up to the consumers to determine if what they are selling is something of value. These aren't benzene-spewing chemical plants polluting the waters we drink out of. They aren't forcing us to buy Kill-Em-All Bruiser 2007. It's not like it's a commodity like gasoline or electricity that most of us need to purchase in order to go about our normal lives. This is entertainment.

Unfortunately I think that most of the issues we're having now stem more from people thinking that games are just for kids (still a major thought pattern for the mainstream) and also from kids being allowed to play any game they want unsupervised. If more parents would sit down with their children and watch what they play or set specific guidelines about what is played in the house, amongst other things, it would go a long way to getting people to stop treating videogames as the latest in a long string of society destroying boogymen.

And that's really all I can say about that. You've got your point of view, I've got mine. We agree on certain points and I think that at the core we want the same thing. We just have different ideas on how it should be implemented. If you really don't like M or AO rated games, move to Australia. They seem to ban anything risque down there :)

[YodaMouse]

Jaz Galaxy,

I grew up in an Eastern-European country, and moved to America when I was about 11 years old. Now there's not a lot of good that I can say about the government which ruled that country: It was part of the Soviet empire.

But here is something interresting. According to the law, a child under the age of 16 could not be charged with any crime whatsoever. Instead, any crime that they commited would be transfered to the parent. Meaning that if a child went out and killed another child with a gun, the parent of that child would be sent to prison for life. The kid on the other hand would simply recieve intensive psychiatric counseling untill a court found him to be fit to re-enter society.

In cases of lesser offenses, the child would simply go to live in a government dormatory. (This is not the equivalent of Juvenile Hall! It's more like a camp. I've seen one of the places and it was really quite pleasant. Orphans and abandoned kids lived there.)

My point here is that to this day my country enforces this law. Interrestingly enough there have never been--to the best of my knowledge--a case where a child has knowingly killed another child.

Now you understand my anger a little. I come from a country where the media was CENSORED as a matter of policy. And yet that censorship was less restrictive than some of our present day "rating systems".

Why? Because in reality most parents in America refuse to take responsibility for their own children. They think the Republicans should do it for them. They think the FCC should do it for them. They think the friggin' school system should do it for them.

When all they really have to do is take the remote out of little Jhonny's hand and smack him upside the head for watching something he shouldn't.

So what will happen if we continue the way we're going? We keep putting children in jail untill a 5 year old can be tried as an adult. Why? Because nobody would own up and put the bastard parent in jail instead.

Gentlement, it's not the violent games that are the problem. All of Europe plays these games and no one over there complains a damn bit about them. It's the complete emotional vacuum that we let our kids live in. Let's face it.

[JazGalaxy]

You both have very good points, and I understand where you are coming from, but I guess where we diverge on opinion is in where responsibillity should be placed. call me a big nerd, but I grew up reading spiderman and I completely believe in the adage taht with great power comes great responsibility. If you have the power of a gun, I think you have the responsibility to make sure that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands, such as children or those incapable of using it properly. If you are in a position of authority, such as a teacher or a policeman, you have the responsibility never to abuse that power for your own personal gain. If you have the power of broadcasting information... like, say, you own a newspaper or a radio station, you have the responsibility to make sure that what you're broadcasting is not misinterpreted or unintentionally insiteful. the bottom line, I feel, is that the more power you have, the more responsible you have to be.

I was just at wal mart test playing the Xbox 360. It looks pretty great, but at the same time, the console is back in a little alcove almost by itself, and I have to wonder if the games on display are appropriate for everyone to be playing. I was playing Call of Duty II for instance, and this lady's baby was just looking at the screen google eyed as I mowed down double digits worth of german soldiers. When I realized she was looking, I switched to something else.

But, that's just my problem. If you're goign to put something in a public space, I feel that it's important to make sure that you're not, intentionally or not, doing something irresponsible. Much in the same vein, movies only play trailers that are rated general audiances unless you are in an R movie. that makes sense to me. Was this woman at fault because her baby was watching me murder things? certainly not, I would think, because she was looking the opposite way. Is she to be craning her neck around looking at every TV screen to make sure there is nothing inappropriate going on? She'd suffer severe neck strain after a day, were that the case.

Some may say, well, you just need to be less offended by this stuff because it's everywhere. I would say, just because it's everywhere does that make it good or healthy to subsist on? Capitalism is constantly trying to push the envelope in order to make you pay attention to their products. I study graphic design in school, now, so I'm forced to pay a great deal of attention to it. Every limit is pushed, every standard compromised all to make you buy something you probably don't want.

If this was a social progression where we were breaking down the walls of intollerance or racism or something like that, I would be all for tearing down the walls of the status quo, but this is all about making money. They don't put beer girls on tv to celebrate the female body, they do it to sell beer. nevermind how many girls they give eating disorders to in the process. Their annual report doesn't have a slot for eating disorders.

But that's a rant that's nither here nor there. In the context of the videogame world, I just feel as though we're trading in everything that makes games good and fun for a little bit of sensationalism. Moreso, I feel that most gamers have compeltely lost the ability to see the games industry as it really is, and that includes me.

I was watching Extended Play a good while back, and they were showing the preview for some game. Blood was shooting otu all over the screen as the main charachter walked around and murdered tons of guys. My mom walked in behind me and was like "MY GOODNESS!!!!!!". It wasn't until she said that that my gamer eyes dropped off and I really thought about what I was looking at. The fact that you see people who play GTA and say they think that the game is being unfairly singled out and attacked for no reason when, and I say this as a GTA fan, it's the single most potentially objectionable piece of media ever created, supports this. The game encourages you to break hundreds, and seriously, I mean HUNDREDS of laws, from running stoplights to stealing cars, to drug peddling, to cop killing. I mean... seriously.

I guess... I just feel as though if gamers really want to further the hobby of gaming, they should get real and stop making excuses for content that is way beyond just "objectionable". If they want to play games like GTA, fine, I will too (for it's excellent gameplay, not it's sadism), but they should be taking every measure possible to keep it out of the hands of kids under the appropriate age, not defending game companies that want to go to court to defend their right to sell these games to minors...

[YodaMouse]

JazGalaxy,

I think your argument integrates into a greater sociological framework than the scope of "gaming violence". It's difficult to discuss cultural phenomenon strictly in the context of a single variable--such as a specific form of entertainment.

I will do my best to address the greater context in increments. (Unless you enjoy a 30 page sociology thesis.)

The REASON violence in video games appeals to a wide spectrum of age groups--from 8 year olds to 60 year olds--would probably be best discussed in the context of human psychology. I suspect if explored deeper, a trained psychologist and sociologist could give you some very poignant reasons why humans in general are attuned to physical violence in the abstract form. All in all I would think basically people are pretty violent when it comes right down to it, and age bars none.

I take it that your point in all of this is that we're over exposing kids to something that they should grow to understand over time. This may very well be true, but I still say that parents are wholly responsible for the content their kids are exposed to.

Unfortunately the reality is that men like violent games at all ages. Just like boys become curious about boobies arround age 12 (I know I did.) Yet interrestingly I did not become sexually deviant because I snuck playboys and videos into my room. (Not to brag, but I dated a modell and later a olympic swimmer right after I finished high school. If anything, I'm overly adjusted in that department.) I mean, really, isn't that ultimately the basis for our social conventions prohibiting minors from accessing sexual content? And if you think about it, it kind of works.

I don't think I could have handled some of the hard core internet porn stuff at 12 years old. But I sure could appreciate Susanne Summers with her top off :o)

I think little Jhonny should be smacked on the back of the head when he tries to buy a violent video game. End of storry.