U.S. Lawmakers want "Psychological Impact of Violent Video Games on Youth" studied

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12 December 2012   #61
yeah, That was a bit emotional of a response from me.

I just found that scene very disturbing and disturbing that it would be considered entertainment. But that would only be my opinion. Violence is violence and we are what we create.

As a father, I struggle with alot of media and what I allow my kids to play and watch. Especially when they act out what they saw or experienced in a game in the house.

I can't imagine how hard it is to raise kids in other countries where the reality of violence is even harsher right now and it has nothing to do with video games, just government suppression or groups fighting over power and control.

Bottom line is everyone has the capacity to do very gruesome and violent acts. Many people may even fantasize or imaging hurting someone else or commiting a violent act. However, sane people, can control that anger and/or thought process and not act on it.

Maybe the question has to be "Does video games and graphically violent media erode a layer of accountability or numb a switch that keeps people from snapping and doing these things?

Personally, I would like to find the way to help crazy people to choose to harm themselves before taking life from others or in a way that harms the innocent.

It is a waste of tax money to study the games by themselves. There is too much money involved, same thing with any other industry, porn and whatever. Too much money to be lost to change it drastically. It has to be a cultural change and an overall look at the media as it's produced and sensationalized. Unfortunately, people look at the surface cause and will want retribution or a band-aid fix (i.e. gun control, banned video games, etc) instead of really getting to the root causes and true solutions (which are much harder to face and accept).

Jeez, I'm still trying to figure out how to justify to my kids why its okay for good people to do bad things to bad people.

Last edited by XLNT-3d : 12 December 2012 at 05:30 PM.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #62
Originally Posted by XLNT-3d: yeah, That was a bit emotional of a response from me.


That's okay, it's an emotional subject. Here's a quick lowdown on that mission, which might change your view (or might not...): in it, you play a deep cover CIA agent who has infiltrated an ultranationalist Russian terror cell. You're ordered by the cell's leader to participate in a mass shooting at a Moscow airport, which you go along with to avoid blowing your cover, and at the end of the mission you're killed and left behind in order to convince the Russian authorities that the attack was perpetrated by Americans. It then kickstarts a Russian invasion of the US (which is what the terror cell wanted). It's total Tom Clancy stuff. A few things you may be unaware of: the mission is optional - players are warned initially that it may be disturbing and can therefore be skipped. Additionally you can actually play the entire mission without actually participating in the killing of the civilians - when I played it, I simply walked behind the terrorists, taking in the horror. So it wasn't just a mindless orgy of violence added to the game for the sake of sensationalism and controversy; it actually served a vital and horrific role in the story. I don't know if that'll change your opinion at all, but I thought it worth explaining.

Quote: Violence is violence and we are what we create.


I don't agree with this. I feel that shock has a place in art. Sometimes it's necessary to prove a point or support a story. For example, there are many profoundly anti-war films which are very violent - they use the violence to show people the horrors of war. As such, we always need to view things in context.

Quote: As a father, I struggle with alot of media and what I allow my kids to play and watch. Especially when they act out what they saw or experienced in a game in the house.


That's understandable. But part of being a parent is educating your kids about what's wrong and what's right, and I'm sure you do this. Sadly some parents don't.

Quote: Maybe the question has to be "Does video games and graphically violent media erode a layer of accountability or numb a switch that keeps people from snapping and doing this things?


Numerous studies have already been undertaken on this subject and there's no general consensus. For every study that finds this to be true, you'll find a study proving it false. In my view, the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who play games don't go out on killing sprees means I'm inclined to believe they don't have a negative effect on the people playing them. Furthermore, when these shootings happen, there's always a dysfunctional or abusive situation in the perpetrator's past. The Columbine kids were bullied terribly by their peers, for example.

Quote: Personally, I would like to find the way to help crazy people to choose to harm themselves before taking life from others or in a way that harms the innocent.


And I'd like to find a way for "crazy" people to not harm anyone, including themselves. Do you know anyone who has been suicidal or actually killed themselves? I do. I'd rather it hadn't happened. Furthermore, not everyone who does these things is crazy. This kind of harmful stigmatisation of the mentally ill is not going to improve things.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 12 December 2012   #63
Originally Posted by leigh: Did someone do that in this thread?


Without singling anyone out for a pointless argument, yes they did. When someone says something like "videos games aren't the problem" and then calls for gun control.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #64
Originally Posted by darthviper107: It's true, there was already a case last year in California about violent video games, it ended up costing at least $2 million

Its not just Americans unfortunately. I was very disappointing to see that the German government successfully banned certain video games. I couldn't believe it.

Edit: A search revealed that Germany is not the only country to have done that numerous times. I will stop pointing fingers.
__________________
The terminal velocity of individual particles is directly related to pink rabbits on a bank holiday.
Characters, Games, Toys

Last edited by Kanga : 12 December 2012 at 06:09 PM.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #65
Originally Posted by BigPixolin: Without singling anyone out for a pointless argument, yes they did. When someone says something like "videos games aren't the problem" and then calls for gun control.


I have only seen one person in this thread mentioning gun control, and their post wasn't worded the way you're putting it. I'm not trying to nitpick here but you can't just wade into a thread after four pages and complain about a single post on the first page while insinuating that the sentiment in it is a prominent recurring topic of the discussion.

If I've overlooked some other posts, then fair do, but I only recall seeing the one.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 12 December 2012   #66
Originally Posted by XLNT-3d: that airport mission is some seriously sick piece of shit entertainment. Totally f*cked up writers to come up with that kind of shit for entertainment.

That's the kind of crap that is definitely polluting and desensitizing. That shit would never fly in my house and I would quit a company before producing that shit even for adults.


same here,
it was a great game but thought too the airport mission was wrong, should have had the player just witness the action and not take part of it or maybe just a cutscene.
Even in GTA, i don't recall a mission which involved killing civilians,
in most games, you kill the bad guys.

Originally Posted by leigh: Why is it any more sick than the rest of the game? Killing is killing, from a purely moral standpoint.

there is difference between killing bad guys and killing innocent civilians..
 
Old 12 December 2012   #67
Originally Posted by DutchDimension: The desire of an individual to spend vast amounts of time re-enacting gruesome ways to kill/murder living beings in ever more realistic ways has always struck me as rather bizarre. Watching something like the Connecticut drama unfold on TV, then casually switching the TV input over for a session of GTA, Manhunt, etc. is incomprehensible to me. I don't know how people get pleasure out of that.


+1.
Violent video games are designed to numb the senses. The army use these same style of games to train soldiers, so whoever here is saying that games do not affect ones behavior is not in touch with reality. Try this, get a young child to play one of these games, then get him to play with his brother... first thing he wants to do is reenact what he had just been playing. I work with kids and see this all the time. I just wished parents had the sense to stop access to these violent games, but in the end, kids can get their hands on this stuff regardless. and I do not live in America but humanity being what it is we all tend to be attracted to the same things, unfortunately violence or watching someone suffer seems to be at the top of the list. I applaud the direction this is going to try and bring innocence back to our children, but the whole entertainment industry should really get back in touch with reality. In the same tone Parents have just as much if not more a responsibility in limiting the access their children has to questionable entertainment.

We here are mostly to blame for the graphic realism that is portrayed in movies and games, that is why all I can hear from most here is the common I don't kill anyone, games don't affect me or anyone else, I understand you guys are trying to protect your livelihoods. And to be fair that is what sells. Never used to, but it does now, and the level of graphic violence or mass murder needed in order to shock audiences these days keeps getting higher and higher. Now tell me, if that is not desensitizing our minds, what is?

Today, my father in law bought some light sabers for my boys. Pretty cool I thought as I love Star wars and I have never given consideration to killing someone or feared of being killed by a light saber. We watched the movie, episode 6, then the boys played each being his favorite character, harmless right? But my youngest has already woken up 3 times tonight screaming, which he never does. My wife asked him why and he said he dreamed he has getting killed by the light saber toy that his grandfather bought him. Now if any of you have kids, you will most probably relate to this experience. As a family we now have to decide when it will be best for him to play with this toy if ever, as we don't need sleepless, fearful children.

My point being, the entertainment industry should be held accountable for the levels of realistic graphic violence allowed on screens these days, and correct it.

This whole discussion is long in waiting, I feel that Adams mother is responsible to a larger degree for the outcome of this event I feel, since she totally controlled his life from the reports I heard, she allowed high powered guns (Military grade for self defence? Against what? Alien invasion?) in her house, she supervised and trained her sons how to use them, all the while knowing he was not stable... She paid for her mistake with her life (Her guns didn't help her at all, instead were the causes of her death and the death of all those beautiful young people) I do not know nor care what games, music or films he was watching as I think the aforementioned reasons are more than enough to show that America needs to get it's 2nd amendment revised first for the safety of the many. Sure protecting ones self should be the right of everybody, but it what level does one realistic feel he could do so without suffering repercussions for doing so if he used guns that should only be in the hands of the military not general public?

I finish by saying that this discussion will probably never finish but be constantly at the table. In light of this all we can do is what we can to ensure the safety of or children, friends, husbands wives and lovers from these sort of dangers in the most responsible and benefical ways.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #68
Originally Posted by JML: there is difference between killing bad guys and killing innocent civilians..


Who gets to determine who the bad guys are anymore?

Considering it sounds as if you did indeed play the game, I'm surprised by your post. After all, you could just observe the massacre without taking part. Furthermore, as I explained in another post, the events of the mission played a critical role in the story. The fact that the victims were civilians was vital, as it was to provoke an invasion. Don't you remember?
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 12 December 2012   #69
Originally Posted by grafixsuz: +1.
Violent video games are designed to numb the senses.


I'm sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously when you start a post with this kind of Daily Mail sensationalism. Games are not "designed to numb the senses" - on the contrary, they're designed to thrill and excite, which is the complete opposite. Games are entertainment, and comparing them to military indoctrination is a little absurd.

Quote: so whoever here is saying that games do not affect ones behavior is not in touch with reality.


No, this statement is out of touch with reality. Honestly, I cannot fathom how anyone can reasonably use this line of thinking when, as I and others have repeatedly stated in this thread, the vast majority of people playing games are totally normal. I've been playing "violent" games most of my life and I'm a pacifist vegetarian who has never even touched a gun in real life.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 12 December 2012   #70
Originally Posted by leigh: Who gets to determine who the bad guys are anymore? ?

well.. the bad guys are the ones killing those civilians..that's universal.
usually whoever shoot unarmed people, woman,kids , are bad.
it's different than a conflict between 2 armed forces.

Originally Posted by leigh: Considering it sounds as if you did indeed play the game, I'm surprised by your post. After all, you could just observe the massacre without taking part. Furthermore, as I explained in another post, the events of the mission played a critical role in the story. The fact that the victims were civilians was vital, as it was to provoke an invasion. Don't you remember?


I finished the game a while ago, I don't remember every details, I understand it was part of the story, but many games choose to use a cut scene to explain who are the bad guys.
it's good you could just observe, but I just think they should have gone further and actually block you weapon so you cannot shoot the civilians.. they do that in some games.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #71
Originally Posted by JML: well.. the bad guys are the ones killing those civilians..that's universal.
usually whoever shoot unarmed people, woman,kids , are bad.
it's different than a conflict between 2 armed forces.


Well considering the number of civilians who die in "legitimate" conflicts around the world, things are becoming a little blurred these days, don't you think? Without wanting to veer too far off into a volatile political tangent here, western forces have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians in the Middle East, and not always as collateral damage, but we're supposedly the good guys, right? The thing is that life isn't black and white. There are many shades of grey and our entertainment reflects that. I thought that mission was a fascinating and unique experiment in putting the player into a position of true moral dilemma.

Quote: I finished the game a while ago, I don't remember every details, I understand it was part of the story, but many games choose to use a cut scene to explain who are the bad guys.
it's good you could just observe, but I just think they should have gone further and actually block you weapon so you cannot shoot the civilians.. they do that in some games.


But by giving you the choice to participate as opposed to merely witnessing, the game is more engaging and thought-provoking. I found the mission horrifying. And I think that was the point.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 12 December 2012   #72
If starcraft makes killers, SKorea is in shit trouble. But wait...they never had a school shooting. Something is fishy...
__________________
WhatWeMake
 
Old 12 December 2012   #73
Wink

Originally Posted by Grrrrrrr: If starcraft makes killers, SKorea is in shit trouble. But wait...they never had a school shooting. Something is fishy...


Interestingly, Koreans are quite popular with the "play till death" problem. So maybe there is something with games. And parents that took care of their digital baby to a point their real life baby died of malnutrition and lack (almost none) basic care (google it, there are multiple cases in different country i think).

oh well....
 
Old 12 December 2012   #74
Originally Posted by fablefox: Interestingly, Koreans are quite popular with the "play till death" problem. So maybe there is something with games. And parents that took care of their digital baby to a point their real life baby died of malnutrition and lack (almost none) basic care (google it, there are multiple cases in different country i think).

oh well....


Games can become addictive but this is beside the point. People die from all sorts of addictions but we don't worry that smokers will go on killing in schools as a consequence.
__________________
WhatWeMake
 
Old 12 December 2012   #75
Originally Posted by leigh: Well considering the number of civilians who die in "legitimate" conflicts around the world, things are becoming a little blurred these days, don't you think? Without wanting to veer too far off into a volatile political tangent here, western forces have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians in the Middle East, and not always as collateral damage, but we're supposedly the good guys, right? The thing is that life isn't black and white. There are many shades of grey and our entertainment reflects that. I thought that mission was a fascinating and unique experiment in putting the player into a position of true moral dilemma.


I actually agree with you on this topic but I think the difference people are trying to make is killing the armed enemy is more acceptable than killing civilians. Doesn't matter if the mission was shooting middle eastern civilians, american civilians, etc. they are just recognizing the difference between an armed combat situation and a massacre.
__________________
-Michael

www.MichaelSime.com
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.