Guns dont kill people, people kill people.
The way I see it, a video game is much closer to the gun, then it is a person. Its just because the games contain violence that they get noted, moreso then other things that person may have done.
I dont remember which person in particular, but one person who bombed a large city building was asked what his last request was, and it was for chocolate chip mint ice cream. In my opinion, saying video games makes people violent would be like saying "Watch out, that kid likes chocolate chip mint ice cream, he might blow us all up!".
I like fps games, tactical or simply mow-it-all-to-hell. I also like shooting beer bottles with a shotgun after a weekend of camping, and 5v5 capture the flag paintball is wicked fun. Ive also never even so much as punched a person in the face. I think I kicked my friend in the shin once in like grade 7, but thats about it for violence.
Meh, let them blame video games. Its not like its going to change much.
Violent and non-violent video game design
Quote:Original post by NickGravelyn
While I cannot prove that violent video games don't affect anyone, I can easily disprove that violent video games increase violence in all players. Which leads me to my conclusion that violent video games only affect those with a disposition towards violence.
Except there's no suggestion that such a thing as "a disposition towards violence" exists, making this a convenient get-out clause. Someone plays games and murders someone? Obviously pre-disposed. Someone plays the same games and doesn't murder someone? Obviously not pre-disposed. People make the same argument for cannabis and how it only induces psychosis in those "pre-disposed" to it. Except there isn't some clear dividing line between those in one category and in the other, and even if there was, we wouldn't know how to spot it. It's a flawed argument, appealing to a link between the variable you want to dismiss and some hidden variable which hasn't been shown to exist.
To be more scientific about this, assuming the population has a normally distributed degree of 'inherent aggression', consisting of genetic, learned, and environmental factors in whatever proportion, then if video games increase aggression, you will see some proportion of the population cross the threshold into physical violence. That doesn't mean the non-violent individuals were not pre-disposed and would never be affected, or that the game had no effect on them. They might well be immune. Or perhaps they would just need to be pushed a little further. Or perhaps their environment is less stressful. etc. These factors don't free games (or films, or violent lyrics, or whatever) of any responsibility. Anything that adds up to a whole is a contributor, whether it's the part that crosses the threshold or not.
There are plenty of psychological studies that show some sort of link between violent media (games, films, etc) and factors or indicators of violence (eg. people having 'violent thoughts', children attacking their toys, people being convicted of crimes in later life). And there are plenty of studies that failed to find such a link. And there are experts who find flaws in both sets of studies. Such is the way of studying things we don't understand. And on top of that, there are studies showing that game playing may have positive benefits to the player - maybe outweighing the possible negatives. But it wouldn't be right to pretend that we are sure there are no negatives at all.
I believe that there are far too many variables to say that violent video games create violent individuals. I love shooting heads off in Fable and kicking them around. But blood in real life makes me a little queasy.
Personally, all the violence in the video game is a welcome escape from my real life and a great stress relief. If work has me on edge, then you can bet I'm playing COD4 when I get home.
But then, I understand the fictional element of video games. Give my four and five year olds 30 minutes @ Halo 3 and they're running around shooting everyone with their invisible shotguns for weeks.
With the seemingly unlimited differences in personaty traits and dispositions, I don't think that there can be any completely unspeculative research done in this regard. In the end, will Johny Five be more prone to violent actions after hours of violent gameplay? - Your guess is as good as mine.
Xy
Personally, all the violence in the video game is a welcome escape from my real life and a great stress relief. If work has me on edge, then you can bet I'm playing COD4 when I get home.
But then, I understand the fictional element of video games. Give my four and five year olds 30 minutes @ Halo 3 and they're running around shooting everyone with their invisible shotguns for weeks.
With the seemingly unlimited differences in personaty traits and dispositions, I don't think that there can be any completely unspeculative research done in this regard. In the end, will Johny Five be more prone to violent actions after hours of violent gameplay? - Your guess is as good as mine.
Xy
Re: Kest
In general it does not happen so there is no worry. For a game that is designed to do so, the player does not see the game as entertainment, instead, the game would feel like the truth. The player is playing the game to learn about the real world and to look for a solution to a real life problem.
A game that drives people commit a violent crime would probably have a hero with the same features as the player. This could be the result of design (the designer knows the features of the target audience), or a deliberate customization done by the player (the player modeled himself in the game). The game does not need to have graphics, and thus need not have to graphical violence. What it might do instead is to get the player familiar with violent in real life a little by little. The game's role is not to satisfy the player, but to convince the player to adopt a quest in real life. It is a case where the game intentionally extends its game world into reality.
In my disposition video game can persuade/inspire/assist a major change in a person's behavior. In literature and philosophy, those are the seminal works. Games is an equivalent medium that could do the same. But games in general are not designed to be seminal works in terms of the adoption of violence. Just having more blood splash on screen won't do. But we certainly have no reason to explore how to make it work.
In general it does not happen so there is no worry. For a game that is designed to do so, the player does not see the game as entertainment, instead, the game would feel like the truth. The player is playing the game to learn about the real world and to look for a solution to a real life problem.
A game that drives people commit a violent crime would probably have a hero with the same features as the player. This could be the result of design (the designer knows the features of the target audience), or a deliberate customization done by the player (the player modeled himself in the game). The game does not need to have graphics, and thus need not have to graphical violence. What it might do instead is to get the player familiar with violent in real life a little by little. The game's role is not to satisfy the player, but to convince the player to adopt a quest in real life. It is a case where the game intentionally extends its game world into reality.
In my disposition video game can persuade/inspire/assist a major change in a person's behavior. In literature and philosophy, those are the seminal works. Games is an equivalent medium that could do the same. But games in general are not designed to be seminal works in terms of the adoption of violence. Just having more blood splash on screen won't do. But we certainly have no reason to explore how to make it work.
Quote:Original post by Kylotan
These factors don't free games (or films, or violent lyrics, or whatever) of any responsibility. Anything that adds up to a whole is a contributor, whether it's the part that crosses the threshold or not.
Isn't that like saying certain food is responsible for people over-eating? Or certain cars are responsible for people speeding and wrecking? You have to be sensible and responsible enough to draw a line somewhere. Games are fantasy simulations, not case studies of reality.
Typical violent games might convince certain people to do harmfully violent things, but they do not convince sensible people that harmfully violent things are okay to do. There's a big difference. I think most game designers design their games with the assumption that their players are sensible enough to understand the difference between simulation and reality.
Children are another matter. I may have grown up playing pretty violent games, but todays games are a lot more nasty. I don't think I would let young kids (< 11) play games that promote senseless slaughter of human beings, like the GTA series.
This article says that in WWII, there was a problem training soldiers with targets. The soldiers won't shoot at actual people in battle. Their training didn't equip them with the mental skill to shoot at enemies that shoot at them. To improve the training, the 'targets' were changed to human-shapes, and the performance improved 5 times in the Vietnam war.
The Lt. colonel argues that violent video games helps to equip players with skills they normally wouldn't get. It contributes to removing the barriers to physical violence.
I think this is what Kylotan meant when he said video games is a contributor. The human-shaped targets didn't convince people to go to war, but they let the soldiers pull the trigger in a real event.
The Lt. colonel argues that violent video games helps to equip players with skills they normally wouldn't get. It contributes to removing the barriers to physical violence.
I think this is what Kylotan meant when he said video games is a contributor. The human-shaped targets didn't convince people to go to war, but they let the soldiers pull the trigger in a real event.
Quote:Original post by KestQuote:Original post by Kylotan
These factors don't free games (or films, or violent lyrics, or whatever) of any responsibility. Anything that adds up to a whole is a contributor, whether it's the part that crosses the threshold or not.
Isn't that like saying certain food is responsible for people over-eating? Or certain cars are responsible for people speeding and wrecking?
In psychological terms, there's quite a difference. People learn from observation, punishment, and reward. Games provide interactive learning experiences where players can be rewarded or punished for their choices.
Quote:Typical violent games might convince certain people to do harmfully violent things, but they do not convince sensible people that harmfully violent things are okay to do.
This, again, presumes that there is already a fixed division of people into Sensible and Non-Sensible, accepting the possibility that video games are one of the things that pushes people across such a line. With this logic, you could propose such a variable in any situation to explain or excuse anything.
Re:
Suppose you accept that perspective, identity, and method are required for someone to commit a violent crime (regardless whether it is impulsive or premeditated). Then, for a given game, you could estimate the following probabilities of the population:
1) the percentage of the population that would adopt the perspective
2) the percentage that would adopt the identity
3) the percentage that would be equiped with the method
4) the expected damage by a player influenced by the game
Example:
Suppose I code a game where you play a little girl and the game objective is for you to go around the house and find a method to kill your parents in bed because your best friend is sent to the facility for killing her parents.
The game provides option to go through detail, selectable tutorial modules to teach the player all the common items found in a home that could be useful. The initial settings are randomized and the physique/behaviors of the parents are also randomized. Some scenarios would include sibings, pets, relatives, visitors, but the ethics is always to just kill the parents but not everyone.
For the sake of demonstration, let's assume that a poll is conducted which asks people to estimate the probabilities and this is the result:
1) The first question is asking for the percentage of population that would accept the conflict posed by the game is possible in real life (this number includes those that already have the world view before playing the game).
3%
2) The second question asks the percentage of the population that would identify themselves as the main character or someone equivalent in real life.
1%
3) The thrid question asks the percentage that would acquire the violent method by playing the game.
99%
4) The expected damage as directed by the game:
2 deaths
Now you multiply the numbers and the world population and you get the instanteous expected damage caused by the game if the game were accessible to all and there is no counter measure or discussion among the population to dilute/resolve the conflict (i.e. each individual on earth suddenly played the game but does not know that anyone else also played the game):
0.03 x 0.01 x 0.99 x 2 x 6,600,000,000 = 3,920,400 deaths worldwide
I am not trying to argue for or against any regulation, or that the estimatations are realistic. I am just showing a way to estimate a damage.
A clarification: in line with what others have said in this thread, what I posted here does not reject the assumption that there exists 'perfectly sensible' player that would play the game and enjoy it as a fictional entertainment, while receiving no negative influence.
Suppose you accept that perspective, identity, and method are required for someone to commit a violent crime (regardless whether it is impulsive or premeditated). Then, for a given game, you could estimate the following probabilities of the population:
1) the percentage of the population that would adopt the perspective
2) the percentage that would adopt the identity
3) the percentage that would be equiped with the method
4) the expected damage by a player influenced by the game
Example:
Suppose I code a game where you play a little girl and the game objective is for you to go around the house and find a method to kill your parents in bed because your best friend is sent to the facility for killing her parents.
The game provides option to go through detail, selectable tutorial modules to teach the player all the common items found in a home that could be useful. The initial settings are randomized and the physique/behaviors of the parents are also randomized. Some scenarios would include sibings, pets, relatives, visitors, but the ethics is always to just kill the parents but not everyone.
For the sake of demonstration, let's assume that a poll is conducted which asks people to estimate the probabilities and this is the result:
1) The first question is asking for the percentage of population that would accept the conflict posed by the game is possible in real life (this number includes those that already have the world view before playing the game).
3%
2) The second question asks the percentage of the population that would identify themselves as the main character or someone equivalent in real life.
1%
3) The thrid question asks the percentage that would acquire the violent method by playing the game.
99%
4) The expected damage as directed by the game:
2 deaths
Now you multiply the numbers and the world population and you get the instanteous expected damage caused by the game if the game were accessible to all and there is no counter measure or discussion among the population to dilute/resolve the conflict (i.e. each individual on earth suddenly played the game but does not know that anyone else also played the game):
0.03 x 0.01 x 0.99 x 2 x 6,600,000,000 = 3,920,400 deaths worldwide
I am not trying to argue for or against any regulation, or that the estimatations are realistic. I am just showing a way to estimate a damage.
A clarification: in line with what others have said in this thread, what I posted here does not reject the assumption that there exists 'perfectly sensible' player that would play the game and enjoy it as a fictional entertainment, while receiving no negative influence.
Quote:Original post by Kylotan
In psychological terms, there's quite a difference. People learn from observation, punishment, and reward. Games provide interactive learning experiences where players can be rewarded or punished for their choices.
I don't believe people learn empathy or morality that way. They may learn the social type of morality that way, but not the true version of it. True morality is the type that doesn't fade away when no one is looking. The type you understand to be right, rather than the type that's expected of you.
I have a hard time accepting that anyone could use video game scenarios to change their understanding of these things. It would require a very confused individual.
Quote:Quote:Typical violent games might convince certain people to do harmfully violent things, but they do not convince sensible people that harmfully violent things are okay to do.
This, again, presumes that there is already a fixed division of people into Sensible and Non-Sensible, accepting the possibility that video games are one of the things that pushes people across such a line.
First, I don't think violent video games make people less sensible. And more importantly, when I design games, I expect ALL of the players to already be sensible enough to separate my simulation from reality.
For example, I've heard people referring to GTA after they commit a crime. What is that? GTA doesn't even come close to approximating human behavior. The civilians are mindless cattle, and the police are blood thirsty suicidal matrix agents. None of them have names, and they all exist in infinite quantity. Someone (that's very confused) may think they've obtained a strategy to kill people from the game, but it's hard to imagine anyone being convinced by the game that killing is okay.
Quote:Original post by Wai
I am not trying to argue for or against any regulation, or that the estimatations are realistic. I am just showing a way to estimate a damage.
The fatal flaw in your idea is that what people believe to be true doesn’t directly correlate to what is actually true. If you were to survey people hundreds of years ago and asked them if they thought the world around them was made up of tiny little things called atoms, you would’ve got a resounding no. But that doesn’t make it any less true.
The only thing you would be estimating with your idea is what some group of people *think* the damage may be. It doesn’t directly correlate to the actual damage in the real world.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement