PDA

View Full Version : IGN: Violent Video Games Should We prevent Children From Playing Them?


laureato di arte
03-02-2006, 06:27 PM
IGN: Violent Video Games Should We prevent Children From Playing Them?

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/692/692846p1.html

"We'll take a look at the psychological, political, and economic issues surrounding violent videogames and try to make sense of it all. No matter which side of the fence you sit on this argument, it is important to know the facts. "

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/692/692846p1.html

lovisx
03-02-2006, 07:27 PM
Funny, everyone argues that violant games aren't bad because they don't make people violant. So disensitizing isn't bad?

I also find the chicken and egg argument funny. It's like saying, aggresive people are more likely to enjoy killing. So what comes first enjoying killing or being aggresive. Of course one's going to lead to the other. But just because one attracts the other doesn't mean it's alright that they be together.

no offense to anyone, you're probably right for calling me stupid.

psyop63b
03-02-2006, 07:45 PM
On the whole part I have never found a single one of these articles to be truely neutral on the subject. Either because of the writers, editors, sources, or all of the above, no one has taken a truely objective look at the subject. It's a battle of think tanks, each with it's own hypothesis to prove. There is no statistical evidence to prove one side or the other that violent video games have a direct correllation to violent acts.

.

RobertoOrtiz
03-02-2006, 07:56 PM
The thing is that as violence in games becomes more and more real one begins to wonder what that does the moral compass of a person?

-R

Chome
03-02-2006, 08:25 PM
Why don't people just stick to the guidlines set by the industry? If its rated M for 18 years or older, than god damn don't buy it for your 12 year old! I think it comes down to bad parenting if video games are making kids violent.

There is millions of people who play violent video games daily, if less than one percent of that group commits a violent act than that whole group shouldn't be punished. Although I am not one to speak, my 20 year old roommate gets violent while playing halo online, he has violent outbursts which consist of cursing and throwing the controller, also stomping around. He becomes an ass. I don't think he is mature enough to play a M rated game, so letting your twelve year old is not going to help.

Maybe the solution is to have therapists work at video game stores, or you must have a prescription to the certain game by your therapist.

This issue has so many points its like trying to figure out whats the right religion.

Tryn
03-02-2006, 08:32 PM
" Perhaps more effort should be spent to improve tried and true methods, such as parental involvement."
Heck, ya think?
I don't see why the ratings system is such a big deal. We use the same classifications for games as film down here, and there are fines involved. It doesn't stop a 13 year old from getting ahold of San Andreas, but then teens have always been able to get porn too, if they try hard enough.

Lordiego01
03-02-2006, 08:33 PM
Oh here we again.. its the age old game.

Is it black or white? Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Democrat or Republican?
It seems that most people can't understand the concept of a grey area.

Violent video games are both good AND bad. Its good to relax and vent some frustrations in a violent game, but too much of it may make you go crazy.

its like the drugs argument. Some people (most?) report highly positive experiences with certain halucinogenic drugs, while some people report horrific nightmares.

Does this mean that all drugs are bad?... Of course not, but it also doesn't mean that all drugs are good.

its the same for games.

Frank Lake
03-02-2006, 08:58 PM
"We'll take a look at the psychological, political, and economic issues surrounding violent videogames and try to make sense of it all. No matter which side of the fence you sit on this argument, it is important to know the facts."

[/i][/b]http://ps2.ign.com/articles/692/692846p1.html

Oh and don't forget to also look at the violent Newscasts from ALL KNOWN media while your at it. :D :p And then tell me the difference between the two. The key difference is that Media business is paying you off and the game industry isn't.

Freaking idiots just want more control over everyone!

strangelife
03-02-2006, 09:59 PM
Oh here we again.. its the age old game.

Is it black or white? Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Democrat or Republican?
It seems that most people can't understand the concept of a grey area.

Violent video games are both good AND bad. Its good to relax and vent some frustrations in a violent game, but too much of it may make you go crazy.

its like the drugs argument. Some people (most?) report highly positive experiences with certain halucinogenic drugs, while some people report horrific nightmares.

Does this mean that all drugs are bad?... Of course not, but it also doesn't mean that all drugs are good.

its the same for games.

Holy crapola. I agree with you for once.:beer:

pgp_protector
03-02-2006, 10:46 PM
I already prevent my children from playing "violent video games" I don't buy them for the littleones.

Problem solved. Next.

P_T
03-03-2006, 12:53 AM
The thing is that as violence in games becomes more and more real one begins to wonder what that does the moral compass of a person?

-R

I'm sure a lot of the old skoolers played "mature" games when they were kids back since the PC XT days. Games such as Leisure Suit Larry, Police Quest, Doom etc. even the original GTA, but back then they were just pixelated 2D sprites so they didn't seem like a big deal, at least to me personally since the violence felt more abstract rather than real.

These days they're getting more and more realistic so I'm sure the impact these games have on people change as well.

Personally I have no problems with those violent games and as long as the protagonist in the game is "the good guy" eg. Police, soldiers, human (against non-human) etc. it's ok even if some prepubescent kids get to play them.

When the protagonist is "the bad guy" eg. drug dealer, murderer, gang member, robber etc. however, that's when we start having problem if kids try to emulate them in real life.

Of course the setting is relevant as well. A fantasy or sci-fi setting wouldn't be a big deal compare to a modern day real world setting where kids can put themselves in.

What do you guys think?

DevilHacker
03-03-2006, 01:26 AM
There is a rating system!
Parents should use it. It sickens me to see 12 yr olds playing games with obsessive violence like GTA.
I do believe that such games can warp an child’s perception, and should be regulated.

there is my 2cents...
:shrug:

itsallgoode9
03-03-2006, 01:53 AM
I already prevent my children from playing "violent video games" I don't buy them for the littleones.

Problem solved. Next.

To anybody in the world that doesn't think thier kids should play violent video games: read this post over and over till it's burned in your mind!

Out of the group who don't want thier kids playing violent games, there are far to many people that just complain and cause all sorts of bad press for games rather than just doing the logical thing such as this person did.

It's not that hard to do, as pgp_protector proved.

Frank Lake
03-03-2006, 04:23 AM
To anybody in the world that doesn't think thier kids should play violent video games: read this post over and over till it's burned in your mind!

Out of the group who don't want thier kids playing violent games, there are far to many people that just complain and cause all sorts of bad press for games rather than just doing the logical thing such as this person did.

It's not that hard to do, as pgp_protector proved.
That's right control what they see at home and hope that you've given them enough guidance in their life to make the 'right' choices and to live it well. That's all you can do, unless you are like this creatures and try to force your will on someone else.

laureato di arte
03-03-2006, 11:00 AM
There is a rating system!
Parents should use it. It sickens me to see 12 yr olds playing games with obsessive violence like GTA.
I do believe that such games can warp an child’s perception, and should be regulated.

there is my 2cents...
:shrug:

agreed, i think another problem may well be because some parents minds may think, hmmm vido game = toy = for children, so they blindly allow there Kids to play these games, without any thought. I like the way ign labled GTA type games thugsploitation, they have been given a very cheesy look in my eyes, considering that the people who make these games only contact with streetlife is what they see in movies, or hear in songs. There was a very intersting debate on the 4cr forums to do with the new tenchu game on the ds, and it so interesting that there are still those who think gore in games is an important gameplay element http://www.4colorrebellion.com/archives/2006/03/01/tenchu-ds-trailer/#comments .

hellgatemedia
03-03-2006, 01:39 PM
It's all down to parenting. I cringe on a daily basis when someone thinks it's a good idea for their 12 year old to watch Saw 2, a popular film for the kiddies at my work no joke.
I really think some material is a bit extreme, and the "reality" of what's on display is a bit too complex for someone under 17 to comprehend. I think there's a parenting issue as well.
To be honest, I watched some fairly brutal and violent stuff back in the day, like I Spit on Your Grave and Last House on the Left. But, I also was reading hardcover novels since I was in 1st grade, and I lived a cultured life where I went to museums and studied history as a hobby, and I had fantastic parents. I actually watched what I wasn't supposed to without my parents really knowing, among other ways, if anyone can
remember when Cable T.V. first came out, there was a key on the side of the box to
access the naughty channels.
The problem nowadays is that the parents have turned the T.V. into what has been coined
the "virtual babysitter", they will put their children in front of anything to get their time to
themselves, and these kids aren't parented correctly, and there is no balance, the violence is all that they know, so much so that they have turned it off in their head, become
desensitized themselves to it, and that's a bad thing.

laureato di arte
03-03-2006, 09:08 PM
It's all down to parenting. I cringe on a daily basis when someone thinks it's a good idea for their 12 year old to watch Saw 2, a popular film for the kiddies at my work no joke.
I really think some material is a bit extreme, and the "reality" of what's on display is a bit too complex for someone under 17 to comprehend. I think there's a parenting issue as well.
To be honest, I watched some fairly brutal and violent stuff back in the day, like I Spit on Your Grave and Last House on the Left. But, I also was reading hardcover novels since I was in 1st grade, and I lived a cultured life where I went to museums and studied history as a hobby, and I had fantastic parents. I actually watched what I wasn't supposed to without my parents really knowing, among other ways, if anyone can
remember when Cable T.V. first came out, there was a key on the side of the box to
access the naughty channels.
The problem nowadays is that the parents have turned the T.V. into what has been coined
the "virtual babysitter", they will put their children in front of anything to get their time to
themselves, and these kids aren't parented correctly, and there is no balance, the violence is all that they know, so much so that they have turned it off in their head, become
desensitized themselves to it, and that's a bad thing.

yea these are some valid points aswell. Like u said there are times when parents are unaware of what there children are playing, my mother banned me from playing mortal kombat back in the day, she would try her hardest to try and keep me from such violent video games at the age of 12, but then i still found a way to play the game. At times i think it can also be put down to curiositiy on the childs part, they want to explore what is hiddent to them, in the same way I snuck a coppy of Mortal Kombat into my house,(what a foolish game that was). At times i see it like this, we all have a responsibility, either parents,media, or games developers, to look after our childrens well mental well being. Im 24 years old, and i never thought i would see the day when i would spit the "in my day" speech. However, when i was young there wasnt so much of a sexual oriented culture, as there is today.

The top shelf seems to be getting lower, and it isnt just because i am 5.9. There are so many video games magazines that kids can easily pick up that show these violent nonsensical games, because of this new 18-30 image that the games industry is trying to don I see games magazines in them with sex adverts in the back, and sometimes with nude models holding the console on the front.

I have also said this before but i highly doubt that some of these games developers care if there violent game ends up in the hand of a 9 year old, and if you look at the game look past its violence allot of the time you can see the type of immaturity that a young child would find entertaining.

Als
03-03-2006, 10:37 PM
Problem lies in many more layers then just games.
More violence in Holywood movies, too.
As in games, I don't mind violence in the movie here and there, if the story demands it,
but whole movies which are JUST violence, and where violence is the ONLY point, that's clearly wrong.
Also media here in UK as 51state of US, is glorifying violence as well.
It's cool to be gangster, bozo porn star, or as they call it "glamour" girl. Before if you were either violent, or in porn, you would loose career in media. Now it's almost required to be either or!?!? It's mass media and tabloids doing big time, and we are doing very little to change things.
On UK TV in the last few years there are more and more dead people and murders and violence. And yes, maybe you don't mind, but after watching only that kind of stuff, it does make you feel more agressive, less sensitive, depressive and you are likely to less trust in others.
It is "Clockwork Orange" scenario and we can't just close our eyes even if we want too.

my 50 cents


Als

laureato di arte
03-03-2006, 10:47 PM
Problem lies in many more layers then just games.
More violence in Holywood movies, too.
As in games, I don't mind violence in the movie here and there, if the story demands it,
but whole movies which are JUST violence, and where violence is the ONLY point, that's clearly wrong.
Also media here in UK as 51state of US, is glorifying violence as well.
It's cool to be gangster, bozo porn star, or as they call it "glamour" girl. Before if you were either violent, or in porn, you would loose career in media. Now it's almost required to be either or!?!? It's mass media and tabloids doing big time, and we are doing very little to change things.
On UK TV in the last few years there are more and more dead people and murders and violence. And yes, maybe you don't mind, but after watching only that kind of stuff, it does make you feel more agressive, less sensitive, depressive and you are likely to less trust in others.
It is "Clockwork Orange" scenario and we can't just close our eyes even if we want too.

my 50 cents


Als


lol your 50 cents. yes quoted for agreement, lets not forget the stupid publicity those stupid happy slap kids get in the uk.

WMBrown
03-04-2006, 12:51 AM
I can't agree more that this is something in which the parents should take a more active role in their children's lives. it may not be as easy as it was for most of our parents (more time used at work, less time for kids) but i would hope that there are still ways to find that happy balance.

victor throe
03-04-2006, 11:25 AM
why shouldnt kids play violent computer games?

there is no evidence to suggest it has a detrimental effect?

i dare say that if they got rid of this oppressive compulsion by our government do-gooders to ban,censor,classify,condemn this stuff, less people would be interested.

all that would be left would be the individuals who naturally have an inclination towards playing them. which i would bet would still be really large numbers, because its human nature to be destructive and creative.

its not parents fault, its societies. at what point did we sit down and decide what was and was not acceptable? and what makes mine or yours society think it has got it right? each country has a different view of moral acceptance and each thinks its right.

truth is, societies morals/laws are formed by those in power to try and maintain control. its rarely about the welfare of its people.

the only logical way forward is to remove all restrictions on all media. allow the individual to take responsibility for what they do. stop blaming games/video for some freak killing a bunch of kids in a school. removing restriction wont cause more people to partake in that activity, it allows choice. gay sex used to be illegal in this country, i remember when the law changed, i didnt run out and get ram-hammered.

choice and individual responsibility. logic

but thats not what those in power want is it. where is their control?

laureato di arte
03-04-2006, 11:52 AM
why shouldnt kids play violent computer games?

there is no evidence to suggest it has a detrimental effect?

i dare say that if they got rid of this oppressive compulsion by our government do-gooders to ban,censor,classify,condemn this stuff, less people would be interested.

all that would be left would be the individuals who naturally have an inclination towards playing them. which i would bet would still be really large numbers, because its human nature to be destructive and creative.

its not parents fault, its societies. at what point did we sit down and decide what was and was not acceptable? and what makes mine or yours society think it has got it right? each country has a different view of moral acceptance and each thinks its right.

truth is, societies morals/laws are formed by those in power to try and maintain control. its rarely about the welfare of its people.

the only logical way forward is to remove all restrictions on all media. allow the individual to take responsibility for what they do. stop blaming games/video for some freak killing a bunch of kids in a school. removing restriction wont cause more people to partake in that activity, it allows choice. gay sex used to be illegal in this country, i remember when the law changed, i didnt run out and get ram-hammered.

choice and individual responsibility. logic

but thats not what those in power want is it. where is their control?

Hi victor how you doing? Well it is true that video games, media ect cannot be blamed for every lunatic who shoots kids in school. You may well remember the dunblane incident in scotland some years ago, that guy was just plane sick in the head GTA or no GTA.The thing is though, we dont need a shrink to tell us that childrens minds are fragile, allowing them to play or view content were the hero is carrying out acts of violence may well infulence them.

When we were young didnt we run around in the playground pretending we were our favorite superhero? How did we come admire this hero? It was because we were exposed to him on tv shows, or through games. Now imagine now, if childrens icons are more towards the CJ or 50cents, rather than the Marios, or Sonics. Like I have said before I have noticed young children claiming they are pimps, and gangsters. This is because of what these children are exposed to before they are mentally ready, I would be shocked if some one said, "ohhh its ok for my lil one to view porn", infact i would say that parent should be locked up. Is this because I am self riteous and judgemental?
No I just dont think that the child is ready to view such images because it could give them a warped idea of what sex is all about. In the same way Children should not be allowed to view nonsenical violence, as seen in allot of todays video games, simply because there minds are to fragile.

Post_Ill
03-04-2006, 12:37 PM
truth is, societies morals/laws are formed by those in power to try and maintain control. its rarely about the welfare of its people.

Quoted for agreement.

My mates younger brother always plays games like halo, mortal kombat ect with his dad, and he is a perfectly happy 9 year old, he doesnt go beating people up, and he doesnt go shooting people.

He is a perfectly normal, happy little kid, that just happens to like playing games that are above his age limit. I personally think he is mature enough to play these games, simply because he knows the difference between right and wrong, and he also knows the difference between a game and real life.

laureato di arte
03-04-2006, 04:30 PM
Quoted for agreement.

My mates younger brother always plays games like halo, mortal kombat ect with his dad, and he is a perfectly happy 9 year old, he doesnt go beating people up, and he doesnt go shooting people.

He is a perfectly normal, happy little kid, that just happens to like playing games that are above his age limit. I personally think he is mature enough to play these games, simply because he knows the difference between right and wrong, and he also knows the difference between a game and real life.

hi there, but what effect will this have in the long term?

P_T
03-04-2006, 06:23 PM
hi there, but what effect will this have in the long term?

I too have been playin violent games since I was 11 and now I'm 26 and still haven't had any urge to go on a killing spree and I doubt I ever will.

I see this as a shared responsibility kind of thing. On one hand, the parents need to educate their children, if only I got 50cents for each time my parents said it's only a game/film and not real. On the other hand, the developers also have social responsibility to make a game that doesn't glorify criminals or give a sense of gratification from doing stuff like murder, rape, etc.

Like I said, kids like to copy things they see or hear. If they play games where the protagonist is a cop or a soldier then they'd want to be one. If they play a game where the protagonist is a member of a gang who rapes and murder people then...

I know I said parents responsibility and I was lucky to have a mother who stayed at home and looked after me but not every family is as lucky as mine. They might be financially challenged and need both parents working or the family only have a single parent or maybe they live in a bad neighbourhood or the kids go to a bad school and hang out with the wrong people.

My point is it's not as black and white as some people make it out to be, there are a lot of variables that can affect a child's growth and that's why I said shared responsibility between parents and game developers.

JeroenDStout
03-04-2006, 06:33 PM
The issue is probably that a certain amount of people can handle violent games and a certain amount can not. And that difference is not defined by age. The 'intelligent elite' can handle a lot of things and so can their children. But the lesser intelligent can not. Same with things like an absense of public morals or sexual liberty. The 'elite' can handle it, the others can not. I'm stating it a bit black&white now as both sides have their exceptions, but up to a level that is how it is - even if differentiating in this way is rather not-done, it would seem.

I don't have a solution, though, as I'd like to play anything I want, no matter how a-moral it were. I'd love a game which'd make me do awful things against the police or assassinate honest politicians one by one to take over the country by force, it'd be an odd experience I'd never want in real life, but in-game it'd be great. However, whilst I can handle such a thing, but 'the rabble in the streets' might not be able to handle it. And that's my dilemma.

EDIT: Now I'm having all kinds of great imaginations of a game in which you take over a city by force by carefully plotting and guiding a mob, providing weapons, taking out the right people - and finishing off with this huge battle between the armed forces and the people who ruthlessly let get killed for your idea to become the ruler of the town. That'd be rather unique.

P_T
03-04-2006, 07:30 PM
The 'intelligent elite' can handle a lot of things and so can their children. But the lesser intelligent can not.

Yeah, I guess people who are stronger mentally will be less affected by these games.

... as I'd like to play anything I want, no matter how a-moral it were.

Well you see, the thing is, these games don't teach us about the consequences of our actions in game and so they desensitise us from the gruesome reality. If (God forbid) one of your loved ones was murdered or raped, you probably wouldn't say what I quoted.

Of course I'm only talking about some of the more extreme games out there like GTA or Manhunt which thankfully not as prolific.

psyclown02
03-04-2006, 11:15 PM
The issue is probably that a certain amount of people can handle violent games and a certain amount can not. And that difference is not defined by age. The 'intelligent elite' can handle a lot of things and so can their children. But the lesser intelligent can not. Same with things like an absense of public morals or sexual liberty. The 'elite' can handle it, the others can not. I'm stating it a bit black&white now as both sides have their exceptions, but up to a level that is how it is - even if differentiating in this way is rather not-done, it would seem.

I have to agree with you here, but then the question becomes, how do we seperate these two groups; and what do we do about it. I have seen nine year-olds run around and cussing like mad and acting like tu-pac (no idea on that spelling) because they think he is cool. who do we blame for that? It is society, at least around where i am, in California. Most of the television programs here all glamorize rap, and the industry that it accompanies. All of this is what certain children grow up on, because their parents are just as stupid (fine, impressionable if you would prefer to be euphemistic) as they are making their children. So in the same way, video games can and will be viewed in the wrong way by the "impressionable" people who play them, this is not limited by age just as Victor previously stated. However there is no way to differentiate the "impressionable" from their antithesis.

You win some, you loose some... we should just let the people who let themselves be effected, do just that. If anything, intellectuall's time and thought needs to be spent somewhere where it will go to some use, because the entire idea of censorship is never going to change, and nor will the effects.

JeroenDStout
03-05-2006, 02:56 AM
Well you see, the thing is, these games don't teach us about the consequences of our actions in game and so they desensitise us from the gruesome reality. If (God forbid) one of your loved ones was murdered or raped, you probably wouldn't say what I quoted.
Yes, I would say that: 'I'd like to play anything I want'. If a loved one was harmed it'd limit the amount of things I'd want to play, but my point of me not caring how a-moral it would be would still stand. I'm strickly speaking about what I'd allow myself; I'm not gullible and most of my 'evil side' I find in things like books and games, in which you can become someone else entirely (ironically, that is not MMORPGs in which everybody is themselves, only worse ;)), so I really don't want to be limited in what I would want to experience.
Probably, I'm better off writing books and making games (which I do) if I want things like that, but my point stands. I'd simply like to see the other emotions from other peoples minds, no matter how violent or vulgar they are considered by 'society'; if it fits in the story or overall experience I have no problem with a brutal murder or a sex scene (in fact, I usually get very annoyed when scenes 'black out' to avoid showing 'the wrong kind of thing').

Then, exactly like psyclown02 says, you can't differentiate between the intellectuals and the impressionable - or at least, not without uprooting the basis of our society ('everybody is equal'). I don't know what my stance is on what I'd find fit to show people. The decision is also warped, in my view. When I ponder about whether people don't deserve to be shown things like sex and violence, I realise that if most of them have a good afternoon watching MTV and talking about Chris, who is from the fourth grade you-know, then it's hardly like you offer them an experience through the medium. In the same way, the violent little teenager who plays a FPS and shouts 'headshot!' doesn't care about the story in the game and again is just feeding off his own desire to -I guess- be very violent instead of becomming whoever he is in game. So in that sense, the people don't 'deserve' and experience as they don't actually experience as much as use media as a form of 'if I could'-mirror.
So from that sense, I have very little reason to say that people should be able to see everything that they want as I don't think they really experience the games as much as 'use' them.

I must say I find it a rather annoying dilemma. In a happy world everybody is smart and just has amazing experiences which don't bail out the moment there's violence and sex. But in the real world those 'naughty bits' give people the wrong thought, so you do have a thing as too much liberty.

This all makes me think of this slightly creepy an ivory tower scheme in which the elite lives free lives and 'the rabble' all live controlled lives, being shown the things they need to live a life as prosperous as possible, as if they were animals you need to control. I can't seriously propose to do that (might make a nice book, if it hasn't been written already), but who knows that the ideal solution to people having 'good lives'. It all depends on what you want as a final outcome.

I'm so glad I'm not in charge of a country. I probably sound really elitist, too.

victor throe
03-05-2006, 12:29 PM
the trouble is, people(and it is evident on this forum) tend to back up their belief of what is right/acceptable with nothing more than speculation.


many people with different agendas have been studying the effects(or lack of them) of different exposure to different medias for years in the hope of finding proof or evidence to support their agendas

but it doesnt exist.

it wasnt that long ago that people were living in one roomed huts eating sleeping and breeding in front of each other. and often killing each other. the human race has been on this planet for a long time, we are more than capable of being exposed to sex and violence at any age.

trying to hide this material away from people merely breeds ignorance.
it is my 'belief' that children neednt be exposed to such material . but only because it is a synical view of the world and i like to think the world could benefit from a few more optimists.

but finally, i object to one human telling another human what they can and cannot view. especially when it is not evidence based.

JMcWilliams
03-05-2006, 01:06 PM
Victor throe :thumbsup:

With regards to who should run a country:
No matter how smart or intellectual someone is, they can be coerced and manipulated just as much as a 'dumb' person. You just need different methods. You bait the line to suit the fish.

If someone thinks they are smarter than most people, then thats a weakness to exploit already ;) . They also could weigh their own opinions and needs as 'right regardless' (we all do that to a degree of course).

Some group of people putting themselves in an 'ivory tower' is just another form of ego boosting. Like 'classes' in victorian UK, or any other form of silly construct.

A scientist might be able to analyse human emotions and motives, but they themselves are still affected by them. Scientists can have big ego's, pride, jealousy just like the average joe (just look how Edison treated Tesla).

Smart people are just as able to be corrupt, perverted, psychopathic, power seeking (even more so perhaps).

So in my opinion the government should simply be there to maintain justice (you cannot take or harm someone else or their property) and not tell people how to be, or how to live their lives.

Oh well, back to work. :D

GARJones
03-06-2006, 01:26 PM
To my mind, censorship is never acceptable, and no civilised society should ever seriously consider it. You may not agree with violence in the mass media, but you can't outlaw it. Both games and film (television, etc.) treat violence in a rather worrying fashion. There are effectively two things we can do as individuals with free will: create and destroy. Taking another life is one of the most significant things a human being can do, and the media skirts around the massive consequences of violence. Films, particularly, avoid showing the realities of violence and the harm it can do in order to get a lower rating. People get shot and stabbed, yet don't bleed. There is much more danger in hiding the harm that violence can do than openly showing it.

It's interesting as well that sex is seen as worse than violence. As long as it's practiced safely and responsibly, nobody gets hurt. Indeed, usually quite the opposite. The media, however (particularly in the states), treats it as something evil. Anyone else find it strange how the fact that there were 'hidden' sex scenes in GTA was a cause for much more alarm than the rest of the game's content. It's a perverse situation when sex is percieved as being worse than murder.

dunkelzahn
03-06-2006, 03:25 PM
Iīve been playing computer games for a long time. Aggressive ones, too. I have never had the urge to rip somebodies throat out. However Iīve had caring parents who took time for me and would spill the odd argument or two about so called "war games" and stuff like that. And yes, there was the outside world, girls, friends which would tear me away from the screen from time to time.

But on the other hand I know this kid whose parents are always at work, never really cared about him, who spends too much time at home watching TV, playing whatever it likes and nobody to talk to, except your net game companions. This guy might be more suspectible to violence in games, than I was, hmmm?

Itīs not just about the games, itīs about the people playing them.

Als
03-07-2006, 11:03 PM
People who don't use (or have?) their own imagination are usually more in danger of commiting violence because they imitate other people more.
Plus very imaginative writer could give you great ideas how to commit a perfect crime, yet you also have to be detached or desparate to use it.
Clearly "Saving Private Ryan" was a better movie because it showed that war is not a computer game, while "Pulp fiction" showed how cool it is to blow(away) other people.
I'm not preaching censorship at all, but I'm just asking people to take more responsability for what they do. It is cheap and simple to make gore horror action movie, and it will get lots of money, but no one really will get anything good out of it really.
On the other hand people who make global trends are usually ones with background of easy big bucks ( weapons, drugs, traffic, fur, news, pop, rap, etc. ) so hardly we can expect some moral from them.
(golden rule: who ever has the gold makes the rules)
Also hypocracy is so high in society as a whole everywhere, so it is really hard to say something smart, let alone do something about it.
It puzzles me too how media don't want to see Ms. Jacksons expose herself, while it's OK to see tons of blood, gore, death on TV?
Also Merilin Manson can not be guilty because some idiot takes the gun and goes out on spree, nor people do it because they take drugs, or listen to this or that kind of music, or play video games or not.
On the other hand what might help is having lots of weapons ready and available and excepted to have. (People don't kill people without weapons).
I just think that they already made violence exceptable which I think is wrong, and it is not helping the sad state of things in the world as they are.
Also they are trying hard to completely desensetize society as whole, so that they can do everything they want without any resistance.
Also they are using FEAR as a weapon to manipulate.
War, torture, Big brother, more "security" - less civil rights, drugs, human trafficing, autopsy etc. all almost completely excepted and mainstream by now.
All excepted already: violence, greed, fur, animal torture, porn, theft, etc.
My point is that there is enough violence and horror already out there, you don't need to make some more...

Freedom is to live without fear...


Als

(any similarity to persons or goverments is not intentional)

Tryn
03-08-2006, 03:45 AM
Yeah, but violence has always been there, its acceptability has just waxed and waned with current trends. Its pretty misleading to say that the human race has declined morally with the advent of films and more recently video games.
People don't kill people without weapons? We've been killing each other with our fists for millions of years.
I get good things out of gory horror movies: Laughs. Laughing is healthy.
As far as responsibility goes; this is why there is a ratings system. People are meant to choose what they want to see. A film or game maker shouldn't have to be responsible for the end user's lack of judgement (or there parents, or whatever)

Als
03-08-2006, 09:21 PM
Its pretty misleading to say that the human race has declined morally with the advent of films and more recently video games.

I did not say that.
I am saying that some movies are just reflecting that, they are not the cause, hence the mentioning of Manson in music.

People don't kill people without weapons? We've been killing each other with our fists for millions of years.

Well, not in same numbers and as drastic as with weapons.
The fact that killing were and still goes on, doesn't make it right.


I get good things out of gory horror movies: Laughs. Laughing is healthy.
As far as responsibility goes; this is why there is a ratings system. People are meant to choose what they want to see. A film or game maker shouldn't have to be responsible for the end user's lack of judgement (or there parents, or whatever)

I dont see anything funny in it, so it is my loss.
You are asking me to take responsability for words I wrote in forum, let alone making film or game which millions people would see.
And not alwasy are kids protected from bad content just because it says R or XXX on the tin.
On the other hand I agree that film or game maker shouldn't be legaly responsible for the users luck of judgment. (again that's why I mention MM)

Cheers!


Al

laureato di arte
03-08-2006, 09:42 PM
I did not say that.
I am saying that some movies are just reflecting that, they are not the cause, hence the mentioning of Manson in music.



Well, not in same numbers and as drastic as with weapons.
The fact that killing were and still goes on, doesn't make it right.




I dont see anything funny in it, so it is my loss.
You are asking me to take responsability for words I wrote in forum, let alone making film or game which millions people would see.
And not alwasy are kids protected from bad content just because it says R or XXX on the tin.
On the other hand I agree that film or game maker shouldn't be legaly responsible for the users luck of judgment. (again that's why I mention MM)

Cheers!


Al

agreed...

IMHO I think that children should be stopped from playing games such as GTA, or Doom. Why do i advocate this form of censorship? Well I may well be wrong in some of your eyes but this is the way I see it, I wouldnt allow my child to watch porn, but I would allow my children to maybe watch a documentry on sex education. My reason for this is that a child watching porn wouldnt be educated about such things as STDs unwanted pregnancy ect ect, but sex education would, or should. I would stop my lil ones from watching porn I am protecting there minds from things that they are unready for.

Likewise with games like GTA, they aint a form of education, like a documentry on street life on the usa would be, rather it is cheaply glorifying horrific murders, and other serious crimes. They dont show the effect that murder has on families, they simply show that innocent civilian life is cheap within the game. This type of violence isnt to be confused with the type of violence you would find in a spiderman cartoon, or a classic hero vs villain scenario that would ultimatley say, it pays off to be the good guy.

Tryn
03-09-2006, 08:33 PM
I did not say that.
I am saying that some movies are just reflecting that, they are not the cause, hence the mentioning of Manson in music.



Well, not in same numbers and as drastic as with weapons.
The fact that killing were and still goes on, doesn't make it right.




I dont see anything funny in it, so it is my loss.
You are asking me to take responsability for words I wrote in forum, let alone making film or game which millions people would see.
And not alwasy are kids protected from bad content just because it says R or XXX on the tin.
On the other hand I agree that film or game maker shouldn't be legaly responsible for the users luck of judgment. (again that's why I mention MM)

Cheers!


Al

My bad, you're right. I misinterpreted some of your post.
No, fists can't equal UZIs, but the problem as I see it isn't the availability of weapons, but the mindset that suggests they're a necessary thing - to protect you from the other guys with UZIs. Look at the Swiss; rifles in practically every home, but in a country with one of the lowest gun death rates in the world. A little bit of extra legislation doesn't hurt, either.

I think my opinions on this whole thing fall into grey areas. I don't see a problem with a kid playing Doom 3 (a good scare is healthy to a child IMO), but the same obviously can't be said for Manhunt. Likewise, a kid getting a glimpse of his dad's playboy isn't the same as watching 40 minutes of hardcore porn.

And no, you can't protect kids all the time from offensive content, but I'm not so sure you should anyway. Deter them, certainly, give them other options, but going so far as to childproof the world is silly, I think. By making a big deal out of something like GTA, it becomes a kind of holy grail to kids. Ironically, with the conservatives out to crucify Rockstar, they've probably earned them more money, rather than less.

I should probably get to work. I'm not even sure on which points we agree and disagree on, but thanks for an intelligent debate :)

Elmdorz
03-10-2006, 03:00 AM
Personally I think it depends on the child. Some kids know whats real and whats not. When Doom first came out I was 9-10 years old. At the time I thought nothing of it, because I knew it was a game. My mom freaked out about Doom, Mortal Kombat 2, and Diablo. But when I explained to her its just a game, she had no problems. As long as I knew it wasn't real, she pretty much was cool with it all. But I think the problem with games now is.. they are becoming more realistic. And thats the main concern. I mean there is a big difference between Doom and lets say.. GTA: San Andreas lol. It was hard back in the day to argue that an 8 bit game is to "realistic".

As for the rating system, I think its nice and all but some game stores do not enforce it. To me it should be enforced the way cigs and alchohol is.. If someone wants to buy a mature game, they should be carded for I.D. Some of the gamestops by me do this. But other stores do not care.

At the end of the day, I think parents should know what their kids are playing. It depends on the household as well. For instance my parents bought all the games for me until I could drive myself lol. So they pretty much knew what they were getting themselves into before purchasing. Other kids know thier parents wont buy the game so they bum a ride from thier older siblings or whatever. I think I was fortunate because my parents love video games. Hell I bet my dad is playing tiger woods 05, and mom is playing warcraft 3 downstairs as we speak.

Anyways, some parents need to just educate themselves about video games and realize its no longer just pac man and mario brothers. A few mnths ago a parent complained about her kid playing a violent game called God of War. She claims she did not know it was mature(she bought the game to just so you know). Now heres my problem with that. First of all in video games, the title itself pretty much gives you an idea of the type of game it is. GOD OF WAR. That doesnt sound like a happy kiddy game you ask me. Hell even the damn cover art is mature, the guy is almost butt naked with blood covered swords in his hands for crying out loud!!!. Lets see whats another game that kind of gives it away, how about Resident Evil. Ever played a positive family oriented game named Resident Evil? Ya I dont think so. Okay Im done lol.

Brumfield
03-12-2006, 09:13 PM
To me, the idea that shooting somebody in a game desensitizes you to real life violence is rediculous. When I shoot somebody in a game I don't think of it as I'm actually shooting another person. It's pixels on a screen, and the person I just "killed" is actually perfectly fine sitting at their computer in Utah, and they just respawned somewhere else on the map. The fact that there are no consequences for doing these things in a game is often used as an example of why they are bad and how they desensitize, however, to me that's the very thing that makes them so unrealistic that I just can't understand how any normal person could take it seriously enough to become desensitized to real violence. It's like saying playing Battlefield Vietnam will desensitize you to the atrocities of war. As if you were in combat and your best buddy standing right beside you just got his head blown to pieces by a sniper and you wouldn't care because you've already seen that happen many a time in a game with no consequences. The guy you shoot in real life dies. He doesn't respawn. There are consequences, and along with those consequences comes the moral aspects of it. Your morals don't really come into play in a game because you know what you're doing and seeing is pure fantasy. That's the attraction. But it would take somebody who is rather twisted in the first place to confuse that fantasy with reality. To me videogames are nothing more than the virtual equivalent of laser tag. Maybe we should try to get that banned too? Or mabye squirt guns.

victor throe
03-13-2006, 09:10 PM
thats the whole point the authorities will try to make. they will claim that not everyone will be able to differentiate between life and fantasy.

they will often draw upon historical facts such as 'we didnt censor video games in the pacman era because it was clearly fantasy'

pixelmonk
03-14-2006, 01:05 PM
agreed...

Likewise with games like GTA, they aint a form of education, like a documentry on street life on the usa would be, rather it is cheaply glorifying horrific murders, and other serious crimes. They dont show the effect that murder has on families, they simply show that innocent civilian life is cheap within the game. This type of violence isnt to be confused with the type of violence you would find in a spiderman cartoon, or a classic hero vs villain scenario that would ultimatley say, it pays off to be the good guy.

GTA is a game. It "aint" supposed to be a documentary on street life. It's a game. It's not supposed to show the effect the murder has on families. It's a game. Even some of the fluffy g-rated games don't show the back story of how the cuddly cute poly character grew up, his/her family and school-life. Again.. they're games. The game developer, just as a director would do, leads you where they want to lead you. It's up to you to whether or not you buy the game, movie or music.

Also, the current crop of game, movie and comic book developers grew up watching the classic hero vs villain scenario and how good always prevails. That's boring now. "Been there, done that". Things aren't always so black and white, and the current crop of developers know that. Some actually want to go beyond the boring g vs e stale storyline.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you don't like it, don't expose your kids to it, however, realize that if you shelter your kids, they may find ways to get exposed to these things in their own way or via peer pressure. THere is no 100% correct formula for dealing with the issues that started this long-drawnout thread.

pixelmonk
03-14-2006, 01:14 PM
thats the whole point the authorities will try to make. they will claim that not everyone will be able to differentiate between life and fantasy.

they will often draw upon historical facts such as 'we didnt censor video games in the pacman era because it was clearly fantasy'

That's the double-edged sword of censorship. People should be allowed to create movies, music and video games which talk about, if not "promote" violence, just as people should be allowed to complain or whine about it. Free speech works both ways. I just ignore the whiney people.

That's funny. Back then, some parents were against D&D citing it promoted magic, violence and day dreaming. Hollywood even made a movie about it, casting Tom Hanks as the kid who got sucked into D&D and traveled to the "Twin Towers" on a quest. Also, don't forget about the chainsaw, machete or dagger wielding villians in films that had parents up in arms. And before then it was an older set of villains on the big screen. And before then, people sat around the campfire telling stories of horrible creatures or mass murders. And before then, jesters would tell tales of demons and good vs evil to the lords of the manor. And before then.. and so on and so forth. You catch my drift, I hope. Violence has been talked about, even glorified, for thousands of years in one form or another. The individual has to decern whether what they do with that incoming datastream into their brain.

laureato di arte
03-14-2006, 08:09 PM
I know GTA is a game, the reason i said it aint a documentry is due to my comparison between porn and a sex education video. I dont think there is anybody here who would show porn to there kid....

ruinangel
03-15-2006, 09:58 PM
American Society is very strange to me. We try to cover up anything that is real and violent and protect our children from it. We cannot hide from life!!

dbates
03-15-2006, 10:31 PM
American Society is very strange to me. We try to cover up anything that is real and violent and protect our children from it. We cannot hide from life!!

I'm not going to show my kids porn and movies with extended violence, whether it's "real life" or not. Some things are better left unlearned for a while.

Als
03-19-2006, 02:09 AM
Free speech works both ways. I just ignore the whiney people.



Ignorance is a bliss!


yours whiney
Als

laureato di arte
03-19-2006, 02:14 AM
I'm not going to show my kids porn and movies with extended violence, whether it's "real life" or not. Some things are better left unlearned for a while.

My point exactly..

MK2
03-19-2006, 02:42 AM
We should prevent people having kids if they are unable to understand ratings.
I vote for parent tests. Only people that pass the test should be allowed to have childerns.
Damnit for everything you need to pass a test, but the most complex thing -> rising a kid or other living lifeforms is free for everyone...

itsallgoode9
03-19-2006, 02:50 AM
I think we should prevent our kids from having kids....but on the other hand, if we prevent our kids from having kids then there would be no kids left to have kids....so then there would be no kids....maybe that is the answer to this reoccuring problem lol:thumbsup:

chrisWhite
03-19-2006, 04:31 AM
Man, it feels like the industry covers this same ground about ever other month or so. I agree that parents should be more responsible for what their kids are playing. While they will never have absolute control of what their kids are exposed to and interact with, they certainly should know what games their kids are playing, if their kids go behind their back, well, maybe it's time to move the XBox, TV and computer back into the family room.

On the other hand, I wasn't allowed to play anything remotely like an FPS until I was 18, even Shadows of the Empire was too violent. Since then I've begun playing some 'M' rated games, Counter Strike, Half Life 2, Day of Defeat, etc. and while I've admittedly become more recently, I've also been tending to be more and more personally pacifist. Certainly it's not the result of those games, but it is in spite of them.

I think it comes down to good parenting, education and a little common sense generally go a long way.

Larrikin
03-19-2006, 01:17 PM
Violent computer games are essential training for the soldiers of tomorrow.
Good parents know their kids need skilling in killing.
Freedom and Democracy and Peace and stuff like demand that all children should be made to play these games as part of the school ciriculum.

JeroenDStout
03-19-2006, 01:42 PM
Violent computer games are essential training for the soldiers of tomorrow.
Good parents know their kids need skilling in killing.
Freedom and Democracy and Peace and stuff like demand that all children should be made to play these games as part of the school ciriculum.
Yes, I wondered why I had to play the Donald Duck ninja game at ninja-college, but it was as a training. I see, now.

rakmaya
03-19-2006, 10:32 PM
We see at least one Violent Video Game article every month. I think it is about time CGTalk and all forums across the internet create a section called YAVVGA (Yet Another Violent Video Game Article) as a tribute to peple who write these articles b/c they have no other skills in the world than to state the obvious.

CGTalk Moderation
03-19-2006, 10:32 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.