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

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!"

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

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.)

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

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.