• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

*Angelfish*

Games cannot cause violence, but what if....

36 posts in this topic

Who says computer games affect kids, imagine if PacMan affected us as kids, we''d all sit around in a darkened room munching pills and listening to repetitive music....uh oh!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hhmm, flashback, someone posted the same thing as Anonymous somewhere before....

Anyway, violent games do effect kids in the same way the news effects us. We see endless of violence on the news every day and we get numb. We don''t react the same way anymore it''s just another day...children also get numb if they are exposed to violence every day and I''m not just talking about violence in games.

Ok, I''m not against violence in computer games, I''m one of those how enjoy it. However, I encurage age limits on games and parents to make sure that their children do not play games that are not suitable for them. This is not the most easiest thing to do, I know, but if you don''t try you already failed.

/Mr K
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bah! twice!

Violence in the media isn''t a recent development.

It wasn''t new in Homer''s day.
It wasn''t new in Shakespeare''s day.
It wasn''t new in Hemmingway''s day.

The only thing that''s changed is that there is now a global network of media that runs 24/7.

So they(the media) can spread panic faster and more effectively than ever before.

The only other thing that''s changed is that with modern medicine and social safety nets, people who would''ve gotten weeded out of the population in times past are surviving longer.

As long as NASCAR and the WWF are allowed to thrive, we have absolutely NOTHING to fear.

$0.02
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another Anonymous Poster

If a kid killed another kids, then is the kid the only person to be blamed? Even if the kid is the only person to have "legal" responsibility, the kid may not be the only person to be blamed in the ethical viewpoint.

All kids have the human right to be well educated. That means if our game affects kids badly, or if our game weakens their moral, then we are responsible. We violated kids'' right to be well educated.

Brazil, Australia prohibited violent TV games. Even in USA, many movie tape have a Laval for R-rate or X-rated.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Everyone!

This is my opinion on the subject. People always want what they can''t have. If you are denied something for a certain reason, you''ll begin to want it more and more. That''s the way I think it works with violence. Keeping childeren from violent TV shows, games, and other things will only agrivate the situation. You can''t stop a person forever, and if they do get there hands on it, and arn''t satisfied, they''ll want even more. If this keeps up, the outcome can be devistating.

I say that restricting violence, is what makes the problem worse.

Anyways, on to the real point to this post. What would I do if my game was accused of causing violence. To tell the truth, I don''t know what I would do. I would probably try to give good reasons why it isn''t the cause of violence, and if they felt the need to take me to court, I would do everything I could to defend myself.

Sorry if I mixed up some stuff about court, I''m really not familiar with the US Justice System... Also, I''m just 16..

Anyways, thanks for listening to my opinion. You''ve been a great audience.
-Doddler
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmmm....to answer the original question of this post.

No,I would not feel responsible if I knew a kid bought my game and went off shooting all his classmates because of it.Simply because the ESRB rated my game to be sold for audiences of 18+ years old.Once this is in place and is clearly labeled on the box,then it becomes the retailer''s responsibility to see to it that this kid does not get this game.

Can I sleep well at night? Well...maybe not at the beggining but then I just realise what a cruel (and digital) world we live in.

I agree with all the posts here.It is the parent''s responsibility to see to it that their children don''t play such violent games CONSTANTLY (I myself would expose my son to violence on TV and game so he can learn and not be shocked at real life violence) untile the kid is aobut 18 years old.By law in the States you are responsible for your own actions at the age of 18 (or was it 21) in which case there is no one to blame but the kid himself.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My aims when designing a game is most often to entertain, sometimes it could also be some kind of educational reasons. The last thing I would have in mind is that my game would trigger some little kid to go out on somekind of killing spree. If this would happen though and my game would get accused as the main reson, then abviously I would feel very bad about the whole situation.

I most certainly would start thinking about this everytime I sat down and start designing a new game, how much violence will I/dare I put in my game. If a thing like that would happen I''m sure it would affect my thinking completly.

I would probably in a wierd way feel some kind of responsability. However, it would not be my resposability as the game should not have ended up on that kids computer in the first place.

Sleepless nights? Don''t know, now one is able to wake me up when I sleep
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh no, I thought, it''s again going in the wrong direction, but luckily the tide turned and 2 people answered the question.

Thanks.





"I Can''t change the world, but you''ll hear my voice!"
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To answer the initial question, I wouldn't feel any more responsible than I do when they do it without video games being blamed.

I think something else that hasnt been brought up here, is that some people just like violence. Is it any surprise they will indulge themselves in violent media or games? Chicken and egg problem with that one. Assuming that no one prefers violence is ignorant, in the same one could assume that everyone likes chocolate better than vanilla but only changes through life experiences.

Violence is a very instinctual thing, we have glands that promote it as being a possibility (fight or flight). Since thats the case, obviously some people, on a chemical/physiological level, will be more prone to doing it. Thats before even getting into all the psychological factors, and behavioral ones.

So even if we make very violent entertainment: First, its not meant for children almost always. Second, even seeing it wont change them from a peace loving hippy to a satan worshiper (extremes...). And finally, they most likely sought it out because of something in themselves. For most people, theyre release of tension in those areas from what Ive seen...

-Geoff


Edited by - ghowland on 4/15/00 10:12:36 PM
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t think computer games are any -more- responsibile for violence than any number of other activities or situations. I think growing up in a violent household or neighbourhood is far more likely to do it, for instance. But what I don''t accept is the attitude of "well, someone else rated my game, so it''s not my problem any more". The more people sit back and expect others to take care of the world for them, the more problems you''re gonna get.

Aside: there was a recent case where some kid who''d never used a gun before went on a shooting spree and fired 8 shots, hitting 8 people. At the hearing some military expert pointed out that this was an incredible achievement for someone with no combat training experience. In fact, the kid''s only ''combat training'' was extensive play on first-person shooters... so although the games didn''t necessarily make him more violent, they perhaps made him a more efficient killing machine... something to think about. (If anyone can find a link to the article I''m talking about, please post it.)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Kylotan

I don't think computer games are any -more- responsibile for violence than any number of other activities or situations. I think growing up in a violent household or neighbourhood is far more likely to do it, for instance. But what I don't accept is the attitude of "well, someone else rated my game, so it's not my problem any more". The more people sit back and expect others to take care of the world for them, the more problems you're gonna get.


What exactly can you do? Not make games that arent for children anymore?

Should the entire world operate on the lowest common denominator philosophy?

Burn all the copies of 1984 in case anyone gets an idea...

quote:
Aside: there was a recent case where some kid who'd never used a gun before went on a shooting spree and fired 8 shots, hitting 8 people. At the hearing some military expert pointed out that this was an incredible achievement for someone with no combat training experience. In fact, the kid's only 'combat training' was extensive play on first-person shooters... so although the games didn't necessarily make him more violent, they perhaps made him a more efficient killing machine... something to think about. (If anyone can find a link to the article I'm talking about, please post it.)


Some people have naturally good hand-eye coordination and are just natural shooters. I know plenty of people who played tons of video games and couldnt shoot to save their lives (figuratively )when they got into boot camp. I never played much with the arcade games that have guns, but I was a natural at it real life. Video games dont train for real gun firing though, in a number of ways they are significantly different (enough to make people who can shoot in the arcades miss with a real gun, not even including adrenaline rushes of a real dangerous situation changing respiration, control, reflexes and vision).

I heard those same statistics in the report on that kid, and they just sounded like BS to me. They didnt take into account if he hit who he was AIMING for, or if there were just so many people around it would be hard to miss. Or the fact that he could have gotten lucky, or they werent zig zagging, or a number of things that would affect that situation. (3 kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics.)

-Geoff




Edited by - ghowland on 4/16/00 9:45:13 PM
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by ghowland

What exactly can you do? Not make games that arent for children anymore?


I am not against violent games, violent movies, loud music, or any other so-called corruptive influence. In fact, I like all of the above (and am involved in producing 2 of them). I am simply making the point that game developers are part of society too, and it''s not enough to just pass something along and say "someone else''s problem".

quote:
Should the entire world operate on the lowest common denominator philosophy?


I am not telling anyone what to do. However, I am perhaps suggesting that people think differently, if not act differently. If a general attitude of "well, it''s not my fault" prevails, then it''s no wonder there are so many killings. If people were as quick to accept or share responsibility as they were to pass it along, these problems would be much reduced.

quote:
Some people have naturally good hand-eye coordination and are just natural shooters. I know plenty of people who played tons of video games and couldnt shoot to save their lives (figuratively )when they got into boot camp. I never played much with the arcade games that have guns, but I was a natural at it real life.


If you''re making the argument that "Character Trait X happens naturally without video games, therefore video games cannot cause Character Trait X" then you are making a mistake. There can be numerous and differing causes for any given effect. Broadly speaking, you could group these into instinct and learning. Some people may be good shooters just by developing good hand-eye coordination elsewhere. And some may learn it from FPSes, for example. It''s a fact that numerous militaries across the world used Doom clones for training. They obviously found it to be useful and relevant. Chances are, some kid playing one of our games might too, whether they realise this or not.

quote:
Video games dont train for real gun firing though, in a number of ways they are significantly different (enough to make people who can shoot in the arcades miss with a real gun, not even including adrenaline rushes of a real dangerous situation changing respiration, control, reflexes and vision).

I don''t know about you, but playing Doom2 back when that was the most immersive game in existence sure taught me how to be able to react under the influence of adrenaline. So, I take my games seriously Of course there are differences. And significant ones at that. But that''s not to say you can''t learn some relevant skills from it. (Aside: the same can be said for many other activities besides games, I know. I am not saying this is morally right or wrong - just a fact that you can acquire these skills.)

quote:
I heard those same statistics in the report on that kid, and they just sounded like BS to me.

You''re biased, you''re a game developer.
quote:
They didnt take into account if he hit who he was AIMING for, or if there were just so many people around it would be hard to miss. Or the fact that he could have gotten lucky, or they werent zig zagging, or a number of things that would affect that situation. (3 kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics.)

I don''t have the link handy so I can''t check your facts, but that''s not how I remembered it - I was under the impression he selected 8 targets specifically. What are the chances that out of 8 victims, not one was zig-zagging? Of course he could have gotten lucky, but that goes for any situation. You can''t really use the chance of extreme luck as justification for anything when there is a much more likely cause-effect correlation evident. That''s like saying that, given enough luck, anyone can commit any crime, so why bother with police? When you can reduce the chances of such a thing happening, it has to be worth trying, especially when there are lives on the line.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites