Video games are evil!
Some guy made a documentary on how bad video games are and stuff... I'd like to see the whole thing, but currently AFAIKS only the trailer is available.
Either way, youtube commenters/videographers are so retarded it pisses me off so lets discuss it here instead... I'm hoping most springers are a little more insightful than your average youtubeite, however, be forewarned, I hate rehtoric, so if I see too much ad hominem and Straw men I will most likely play devils advocate and be more generally unpleasant. Ultimately while I certainly disagree with the agenda that the videographer seems to be promoting, I think that the discussion raises some very important questions about culture and human behavioral science/sociology.
Anyways, post opinions and supporting arguments!
Mortal Combat
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Mortal Combat
This is a load of crap. People pretend to be what they are not. That's the whole purpose of pretending."We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
Love how they compare together the Twin towers incident and FPS shooters. "Oh no! He plays strategy games about conquering stuff! He's gonna be the future Hitler!"
They blame the artist/art for peoples' taste, morons.
Re: Mortal Combat
Okay, I'll give it a shot. I thought the trailer was nicely made in a technical sense, but I don't see too much value in it intellectually. Valid points could be made, some similar to the ones in the short film, but (based on the trailer) they don't really make them well.
The makers of the film seem to be in two minds of violence in the current culture, because while they do bring up the fact that the depiction of violence is generally more accepted nowadays, they seem to forget about it in points made about videogame violence. Our previous "main storytelling medium", films have also been rather violent lately.
A jewel of a quote:
"If you take a step back and you realize that people sat down in front of the equivalent of this, a flight simulator, and learned enough from a flight simulator to fly jets that they've never touched before into the world trade center. What do you think happens when a nine-year old boy sits down to play with a (fps) game that rewards him for killing cops"
khm. A few points here:
This is more or less a plea to emotions. Without the emotional baggage the argument is :
You can learn things on your computer -> You may/must be learning unsavory actions while pretending to do bad things on your computer.
For this argument to work, we have to suppose that either the PC/Console has some special quality that makes it so, or that this is true in other settings as well, which would take the argument into "Pretending to do things predisposes one to later act in the way pretended".
Now, if the PC is special, what makes it so? They bring up realism later in the clip, this, while a valid point for the future, doesn't work today. No matter how nice the graphics on a game are, you are still viewing them on a relatively small 2D panel, and you are for the most part motionless. No physical contact with the games either and no smells. How is this realistic?
Another point that could be made for the special status of PC's (and half-assedly was made i guess) is that videogames are interactive. This is an important departure from our previous "passive" main storytelling medium (The 'video' part of videogames). One could argue that true storytelling was an interactive thing where the audience participated in the development of the story, but hey, I've got an even better one. GAMES.
Games are by nature interactive, and if you look closely at the ones children play IRL, you will notice that they are also quite violent at times. I would bring up roleplaying in general, and any number of real life games (such as small children playing cowboys and indians, playing with toy soldiers, Laser tag or paintball). These other pastimes also involve pretend violence, one could even argue that some of them (Laser tag / paintball for instance) are much more realistic because one is physically mimicking the violent actions.
If videogames aren't special in this sense, than the above mentioned plenhora of other RL situations where people imitate violence would have the same effect on us, and I think it is quite clear that they don't. If I am wrong, expect the overmind to install cameras into every kindergarten and schoolyard to monitor and censor the above-mentioned acts of violence.
Let's not even bring up that nine-year olds shouldn't be bloody near GTA or GTA-like games.
edit: There is one difference between videogames and other things that would warrant further discussion : The consequences of your actions. I don't quite know how to phrase this, but in violent games, you not only pretend to kill people, you see them die or suffer, and then get on with the killing. This difference may be important. This brings games more into the realm of daydreaming than storytelling, but the problem is that you are not the one who guides the dream, it is only semi-interactive.
The makers of the film seem to be in two minds of violence in the current culture, because while they do bring up the fact that the depiction of violence is generally more accepted nowadays, they seem to forget about it in points made about videogame violence. Our previous "main storytelling medium", films have also been rather violent lately.
A jewel of a quote:
"If you take a step back and you realize that people sat down in front of the equivalent of this, a flight simulator, and learned enough from a flight simulator to fly jets that they've never touched before into the world trade center. What do you think happens when a nine-year old boy sits down to play with a (fps) game that rewards him for killing cops"
khm. A few points here:
This is more or less a plea to emotions. Without the emotional baggage the argument is :
You can learn things on your computer -> You may/must be learning unsavory actions while pretending to do bad things on your computer.
For this argument to work, we have to suppose that either the PC/Console has some special quality that makes it so, or that this is true in other settings as well, which would take the argument into "Pretending to do things predisposes one to later act in the way pretended".
Now, if the PC is special, what makes it so? They bring up realism later in the clip, this, while a valid point for the future, doesn't work today. No matter how nice the graphics on a game are, you are still viewing them on a relatively small 2D panel, and you are for the most part motionless. No physical contact with the games either and no smells. How is this realistic?
Another point that could be made for the special status of PC's (and half-assedly was made i guess) is that videogames are interactive. This is an important departure from our previous "passive" main storytelling medium (The 'video' part of videogames). One could argue that true storytelling was an interactive thing where the audience participated in the development of the story, but hey, I've got an even better one. GAMES.
Games are by nature interactive, and if you look closely at the ones children play IRL, you will notice that they are also quite violent at times. I would bring up roleplaying in general, and any number of real life games (such as small children playing cowboys and indians, playing with toy soldiers, Laser tag or paintball). These other pastimes also involve pretend violence, one could even argue that some of them (Laser tag / paintball for instance) are much more realistic because one is physically mimicking the violent actions.
If videogames aren't special in this sense, than the above mentioned plenhora of other RL situations where people imitate violence would have the same effect on us, and I think it is quite clear that they don't. If I am wrong, expect the overmind to install cameras into every kindergarten and schoolyard to monitor and censor the above-mentioned acts of violence.
Let's not even bring up that nine-year olds shouldn't be bloody near GTA or GTA-like games.
edit: There is one difference between videogames and other things that would warrant further discussion : The consequences of your actions. I don't quite know how to phrase this, but in violent games, you not only pretend to kill people, you see them die or suffer, and then get on with the killing. This difference may be important. This brings games more into the realm of daydreaming than storytelling, but the problem is that you are not the one who guides the dream, it is only semi-interactive.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Re: Mortal Combat
"If you take a step back and you realize that people sat down in front of the equivalent of this, a flight simulator, and learned enough from a flight simulator to fly jets that they've never touched before into the world trade center. What do you think happens when a nine-year old boy sits down to play with a (fps) game that rewards him for killing cops"
I like that you caught that one. It bugged me too because it's innately fallacious nature. To state that a person can learn to undertake an action requiring skill when they are intentionally training in that specific action via a video game, does NOT in ANY way connotate that a game can unintentionally indoctrinate an emotional effect via learning, or predispose a previously unpresent idealogical state. At least not at any higher rate than previous cultural comminication methods, books, TV, music, movies. There is no evidence that the fact that something is a superior learning tool corrilates with it also being a more effective manipulation tool. Certainly scare tactics.
I have my own answers to all these questions, but fundamentally that's where the argument lies... and THOSE are the questions that we really need to be answering, because ultimately those are the true basis on which this medium is being attacked.
I like that you caught that one. It bugged me too because it's innately fallacious nature. To state that a person can learn to undertake an action requiring skill when they are intentionally training in that specific action via a video game, does NOT in ANY way connotate that a game can unintentionally indoctrinate an emotional effect via learning, or predispose a previously unpresent idealogical state. At least not at any higher rate than previous cultural comminication methods, books, TV, music, movies. There is no evidence that the fact that something is a superior learning tool corrilates with it also being a more effective manipulation tool. Certainly scare tactics.
I can't really agree... it does something that most media vs gaming doesn't, IE, it acctually presents a plausible and coherent case. The assumption being made is that it is possible for a communication medium to somehow be so psychologically manipulative and abrasive that it must be regulated/banned for the psychological health of the population. Ultimately this is not a new argument, it was made of rock and role, it was made of film, the real question is, is the argument really valid in ANY circumstance? And doesn't it go against the common western policy of freedom of speech/expression? Even if it does, is it possible there is a situation where the reality of the problem is more potent than the rhetoric of libertarian ideology? Is it possible that video gaming acctually IS an example of that situation?I thought the trailer was nicely made in a technical sense, but I don't see too much value in it intellectually
I have my own answers to all these questions, but fundamentally that's where the argument lies... and THOSE are the questions that we really need to be answering, because ultimately those are the true basis on which this medium is being attacked.
Re: Mortal Combat
To quote a PR-Guy i had the Pleasure to meet: Even negative Attention is Attention, and Attention is good to seel things, create a brand or what so ever....
This discussion of evilness invoked on the youth by a new media is quite old- my grandfather was always argueing about comics beeing the pure evil...
The only real diffrent thing is that today there is a real social Gap between Gamers and LeftBehind Non-Gamers. You can learn to read Comics as a Adult, even find serious ones...
but i think it very unlikely that a Old fellow will try his luck on PC or Console-Games, and get attached to the subject...
It is this break, between imigrants & foreigners on one side, and the born in citizens of Gameland on the othere side that allows prejudices to grow. The whole Violence is reprogramming our behaviour discussions is just decoration, and reminding on this infamous urban legend that a Cokebottlepicture in every 24th picture of a movie will transform people into cokethirsty zoombies..
Don´t take it serious, move on...
This discussion of evilness invoked on the youth by a new media is quite old- my grandfather was always argueing about comics beeing the pure evil...
The only real diffrent thing is that today there is a real social Gap between Gamers and LeftBehind Non-Gamers. You can learn to read Comics as a Adult, even find serious ones...
but i think it very unlikely that a Old fellow will try his luck on PC or Console-Games, and get attached to the subject...
It is this break, between imigrants & foreigners on one side, and the born in citizens of Gameland on the othere side that allows prejudices to grow. The whole Violence is reprogramming our behaviour discussions is just decoration, and reminding on this infamous urban legend that a Cokebottlepicture in every 24th picture of a movie will transform people into cokethirsty zoombies..
Don´t take it serious, move on...
Re: Mortal Combat
Okay, first I would like to know if they have some stats on lets say more people are more inclined to violence if they play halo than if they play Mario kart or if they play video games at all. I don't like blood and guts in games mostly because I'm a christen but it's all so the "is that really necessary that his head explodes when you shoot it, what does it add to a game?" stance. The most bloody game I play is Conflict Global Storm and thats with a bad video card. so I guess what I'm saying is that if they had proof that violent games MAKE kids more violent then I would make it that any thing above E you have to be twenty one to bey and then it's your fault if you shoot somebody. video game violence lets you see the real blood first and lets you think "thats not bad" so the fear of shooting somebody and seeing the gore first hand isn't as big a deterrent. the fear of a new thing i.e. shooting someone for the first time is not as big of a thing if you've seen it and done it ,so called, in a game.
Thats what I've got to say.
For Paintball and laser tag that is a simulation of tactics and strategy you are not hearing death cries you are not seeing people get cut in half. And who says violence is a bad thing defending your family from a guy with a gun hoped up on meth is violence, defending some one is violence.BaNa wrote: I would bring up roleplaying in general, and any number of real life games (such as small children playing cowboys and indians, playing with toy soldiers, Laser tag or paintball). These other pastimes also involve pretend violence, one could even argue that some of them (Laser tag / paintball for instance) are much more realistic because one is physically mimicking the violent actions.
Thats what I've got to say.
-
Wolf-In-Exile
- Posts: 497
- Joined: 21 Nov 2005, 13:40
Re: Mortal Combat
As a graduate who has done media studies, I find videos like this equal parts interesting and downright idiotic.
There is a huge amount of research already conducted in the past on the subject of the effects the media have on people. The results have repeatedly proven that, while the media does indeed have an 'effect', its actual influence is alot lower than the makers of this video want you to believe.
This sort of thinking dates back to the earliest theory of the media, where the public are powerless to resist the media's messages (sometimes called the Magic Bullet theory). While this hypothesis has since been disbunked, preconceptions and misconceptions nurtured over several decades are very difficult to stamp out, and with video games they have found a new focus/scapegoat.
This is political propaganda disguised as a 'documentary'. The reason why I say that is because certain politicians want to gain political mileage by being seen to 'crusade' for a cause. Admittedly, the 'crusade' against violent video games is a strong one because of its plausibility, and plays on the fears of parents. But plausible isn't enough to make the assertions they did, especially when a direct cause-effect relationship cannot be proven.
It is also heavily biased, if somehow 'political' and 'propaganda' didn't tip you off to the fact already. The video editing is done to portray games as being violent. What I found extremely amusing is that they even made Abe's Oddysee to look like a violent game.
Like swiftspear and BaNa, I also noticed (with some amusement) the assertions they make about the flight sim and terrorists, then associating it with kids learning to shoot cops and then linking it to the Columbine incident, as if they were stating fact.
To their credit, they used speechcraft pretty well, talking in a modulated tone which implies calm, knowledgeable authority, almost, -but not quite-, speaking as if educating ignorant children.
On the surface it seems like it has a logical progression, but when reviewed critically, it is revealed as a load of hot steaming bollocks.
Not quite subtle agenda-setting there, and very obviously framed as an anti-violent video games propaganda.
And.. Jack Thompson? Need I say more? Who in their right mind would take him seriously after his rabid antics caused him to be disbarred?
Nothing we haven't seen from these people, same message, different package. Rock & Roll, Movies, D&D, and now video games. Its the same story, same argument, equally stupid.
Ultimately, the whole hoo-haa over the influence of violent video games is pointless: if kids become stone-cold cop killers after playing these "murder simulators", why aren't there millions of berzerking, gun-toting kids who are hungry for cop-blood?
Yes you idiot politicians, social sciences aren't as clear-cut and simple as you make it out to be. There are many, many other sociological factors which influence a person's motivations, and a hell of alot more to prompt a person to translate motivation into action.
PicassoCT: I disagree, negative attention, despite what PR people want to believe, is detrimental to a brand's image. I would not consider buying a product which had an absolutely stupid advertisement, because I don't want to associate myself to such stupidity by using that product.
There is a huge amount of research already conducted in the past on the subject of the effects the media have on people. The results have repeatedly proven that, while the media does indeed have an 'effect', its actual influence is alot lower than the makers of this video want you to believe.
This sort of thinking dates back to the earliest theory of the media, where the public are powerless to resist the media's messages (sometimes called the Magic Bullet theory). While this hypothesis has since been disbunked, preconceptions and misconceptions nurtured over several decades are very difficult to stamp out, and with video games they have found a new focus/scapegoat.
This is political propaganda disguised as a 'documentary'. The reason why I say that is because certain politicians want to gain political mileage by being seen to 'crusade' for a cause. Admittedly, the 'crusade' against violent video games is a strong one because of its plausibility, and plays on the fears of parents. But plausible isn't enough to make the assertions they did, especially when a direct cause-effect relationship cannot be proven.
It is also heavily biased, if somehow 'political' and 'propaganda' didn't tip you off to the fact already. The video editing is done to portray games as being violent. What I found extremely amusing is that they even made Abe's Oddysee to look like a violent game.
Like swiftspear and BaNa, I also noticed (with some amusement) the assertions they make about the flight sim and terrorists, then associating it with kids learning to shoot cops and then linking it to the Columbine incident, as if they were stating fact.
To their credit, they used speechcraft pretty well, talking in a modulated tone which implies calm, knowledgeable authority, almost, -but not quite-, speaking as if educating ignorant children.
On the surface it seems like it has a logical progression, but when reviewed critically, it is revealed as a load of hot steaming bollocks.
Not quite subtle agenda-setting there, and very obviously framed as an anti-violent video games propaganda.
And.. Jack Thompson? Need I say more? Who in their right mind would take him seriously after his rabid antics caused him to be disbarred?
Nothing we haven't seen from these people, same message, different package. Rock & Roll, Movies, D&D, and now video games. Its the same story, same argument, equally stupid.
Ultimately, the whole hoo-haa over the influence of violent video games is pointless: if kids become stone-cold cop killers after playing these "murder simulators", why aren't there millions of berzerking, gun-toting kids who are hungry for cop-blood?
Yes you idiot politicians, social sciences aren't as clear-cut and simple as you make it out to be. There are many, many other sociological factors which influence a person's motivations, and a hell of alot more to prompt a person to translate motivation into action.
PicassoCT: I disagree, negative attention, despite what PR people want to believe, is detrimental to a brand's image. I would not consider buying a product which had an absolutely stupid advertisement, because I don't want to associate myself to such stupidity by using that product.
-
BlackLiger
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 21:58
Re: Mortal Combat
On a related topic:
Has anyone ever seen Monsters and Mazes? The most anti DnD film out there that I know of, and it can't even get it's facts right.
The monster is heading towards the guy (man in latex suit, but hey, for the time it WAS a good costume), and all he does is stand there screaming? All roleplayers know if a monster approaches you and you can't take it, twat it with the first thing to hand and run....
On the actual topic: *sigh* I wish the politicians would realise "Average gamer age is 12-25. That means the NEXT set of major voters ARE gamers, so being anti gaming is a BAD idea for your re-election chances."
Has anyone ever seen Monsters and Mazes? The most anti DnD film out there that I know of, and it can't even get it's facts right.
The monster is heading towards the guy (man in latex suit, but hey, for the time it WAS a good costume), and all he does is stand there screaming? All roleplayers know if a monster approaches you and you can't take it, twat it with the first thing to hand and run....
On the actual topic: *sigh* I wish the politicians would realise "Average gamer age is 12-25. That means the NEXT set of major voters ARE gamers, so being anti gaming is a BAD idea for your re-election chances."
Re: Mortal Combat
First thing Wolf-in-Exile-Wolf-In-Exile wrote:As a graduate who has done media studies, I find videos like this equal parts interesting and downright idiotic.
There is a huge amount of research already conducted in the past on the subject of the effects the media have on people. The results have repeatedly proven that, while the media does indeed have an 'effect', its actual influence is alot lower than the makers of this video want you to believe.
This sort of thinking dates back to the earliest theory of the media, where the public are powerless to resist the media's messages (sometimes called the Magic Bullet theory). While this hypothesis has since been disbunked, preconceptions and misconceptions nurtured over several decades are very difficult to stamp out, and with video games they have found a new focus/scapegoat.
This is political propaganda disguised as a 'documentary'. The reason why I say that is because certain politicians want to gain political mileage by being seen to 'crusade' for a cause. Admittedly, the 'crusade' against violent video games is a strong one because of its plausibility, and plays on the fears of parents. But plausible isn't enough to make the assertions they did, especially when a direct cause-effect relationship cannot be proven.
It is also heavily biased, if somehow 'political' and 'propaganda' didn't tip you off to the fact already. The video editing is done to portray games as being violent. What I found extremely amusing is that they even made Abe's Oddysee to look like a violent game.
Like swiftspear and BaNa, I also noticed (with some amusement) the assertions they make about the flight sim and terrorists, then associating it with kids learning to shoot cops and then linking it to the Columbine incident, as if they were stating fact.
To their credit, they used speechcraft pretty well, talking in a modulated tone which implies calm, knowledgeable authority, almost, -but not quite-, speaking as if educating ignorant children.
On the surface it seems like it has a logical progression, but when reviewed critically, it is revealed as a load of hot steaming bollocks.
Not quite subtle agenda-setting there, and very obviously framed as an anti-violent video games propaganda.
And.. Jack Thompson? Need I say more? Who in their right mind would take him seriously after his rabid antics caused him to be disbarred?
Nothing we haven't seen from these people, same message, different package. Rock & Roll, Movies, D&D, and now video games. Its the same story, same argument, equally stupid.
Ultimately, the whole hoo-haa over the influence of violent video games is pointless: if kids become stone-cold cop killers after playing these "murder simulators", why aren't there millions of berzerking, gun-toting kids who are hungry for cop-blood?
Yes you idiot politicians, social sciences aren't as clear-cut and simple as you make it out to be. There are many, many other sociological factors which influence a person's motivations, and a hell of alot more to prompt a person to translate motivation into action.
PicassoCT: I disagree, negative attention, despite what PR people want to believe, is detrimental to a brand's image. I would not consider buying a product which had an absolutely stupid advertisement, because I don't want to associate myself to such stupidity by using that product.
Your are right, you´re arguments are fine, also they are the long run - and good arguments don´t work against propaganda that directly aims at feelings of parents. It is sad, but it is that way..
And that NEGATIVE-PR doesen´t work on you, because you think about what you buy. Most people don´t, they step into a shop and all of the sudden there is this THingthey "Heard" somewhere about. If you count down good selling things, you will find a lot of stuff related to negative PR-Disasters (Sweatshopshoes.etc.)- and nobody cares about it in the longrun. However true is that a brand needs at least 50 % Good Marketing...
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Re: Mortal Combat
The problem I have with wolf in exile's post... it's the same basic rebuttal I keep hearing all over the place. Basically, "because Joseph Lieberman could possibly benefit from a crusade against videogames, therefore he must not acctually care about the issue, and nor is the issue acctually valid", or "because Jack Tompson uses questionable legal methods, everything he has to say about the topic must be invalid". Simply put, it's ad hominem. It's the same argument that "because Hitler hated Jews all Jews must be more good than normal people". Irrelevant of who makes a point, or why they make the point, the point is either valid or invalid based it's rationality and evidences, the character of the speaker is not a valid factor in acceptance/dismissal of something as fact/fiction.
Basically, it's not a real argument, our motives are just as easily questioned. We don't want video games banned because it's part of our evil addictive lifestyle and we'll say anything we can to promote their evil cause. If Jack Tompson, Joseph Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton are wrong in their claims that video games are doing damage, and they are wrong in their proposals to restrict these platforms, then they must be wrong for REASONS, not simply because Jack Tompson is an idiot and politicians gain benefit from fighting arbitrary crusades. Sure, we can question thier motives in promoting a wrong ideal AFTER we have proven that the ideal IS indeed wrong, but their motives themselfs can't possibly PROVE the ideal wrong.
Basically, it's not a real argument, our motives are just as easily questioned. We don't want video games banned because it's part of our evil addictive lifestyle and we'll say anything we can to promote their evil cause. If Jack Tompson, Joseph Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton are wrong in their claims that video games are doing damage, and they are wrong in their proposals to restrict these platforms, then they must be wrong for REASONS, not simply because Jack Tompson is an idiot and politicians gain benefit from fighting arbitrary crusades. Sure, we can question thier motives in promoting a wrong ideal AFTER we have proven that the ideal IS indeed wrong, but their motives themselfs can't possibly PROVE the ideal wrong.
Re: Mortal Combat
If the issue is violence, Games = Movies = Pictures = Novels = REALITY. There are sick and disturbing things in all mediums and just because your to stupid to keep little Timmy's hands of bloody murder kill 4 doesn't mean you have to ruin it for everyone else by banning it. (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/most-aw ... rities.php)
If the issue is interactivity, pushing buttons =/ shooting a real gun. Not even close. Interactivity is the only thing new with games so i don't see the big deal. The parents see it as Timmy holding the gun himself. Timmy himself doesnt see it that way. Timmy is more likely to think "THE AWP IS SOOO CHEAP" then to think "Alright let's shoot some infidels allah akbar", and in any case never in a serous manner.
As art and culture explore new ways, violence and sex will always present themselves in ways that people will resent. The beauty of free choice is that no one's forcing you to watch it. And this is just the natural reaction of previous generations coping with change (or rather, not coping with it.).
God knows what would happen if we introduced them to the horrors of the Internet.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1791106
If the issue is interactivity, pushing buttons =/ shooting a real gun. Not even close. Interactivity is the only thing new with games so i don't see the big deal. The parents see it as Timmy holding the gun himself. Timmy himself doesnt see it that way. Timmy is more likely to think "THE AWP IS SOOO CHEAP" then to think "Alright let's shoot some infidels allah akbar", and in any case never in a serous manner.
As art and culture explore new ways, violence and sex will always present themselves in ways that people will resent. The beauty of free choice is that no one's forcing you to watch it. And this is just the natural reaction of previous generations coping with change (or rather, not coping with it.).
God knows what would happen if we introduced them to the horrors of the Internet.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1791106
Re: Mortal Combat
Sorry swift I like strawmen.
So if "interactivity" is to blame then I would think that kids running around outside having sword fights with sticks and/or pointing them at other kids and pretending to fire them as guns is a lot more "interactive" then me holding a joystick or control pad ( exclude Light Guns, Steering Wheels and the Wiimote from this part of the argument ). Also, when children are "playing" these war games the target is a real flesh and blood human and not some digital representation thereof. Maybe we should prevent children from playing games in person with other children because it will cause them to be healthy and fit and trained to kill people as soon as you replace those sticks with real weapons.
Here's another one:
Psychopaths are more prone to Violence then non-Psychopaths
Psychopaths are usually Loners
More Loners Play Video Games Then Non-Loners
Psychopaths, being Loners, are Likely to Play Video Games
If all this is true, Video Game Players are More Likely to Be Psychopaths then Non-Video Game Players... a valid correlation based on the assumptions I've made.
However the "Other Side" Just see the final outcome, that "Video Game Players are More Likely to be prone to Violence then Non-Video Game Players" and see a causal relationship where there isn't one.
One More... not quite strawman but...
So if Video Games Cause Violence, Why do we see the murder rate go DOWN as the realism and violence in video games goes up? (based on video games becoming public in the late 70s)
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
The problem is that you can't really do a proper experimental study, you have to work with case research which fails in many cases to find a causal relationship when a correlation is found. You can't compare "kids from the 60 before video games were around" vs kids today who play lots of video games vs sheltered kids who live today and have been kept from video games and get meaningful results because the entire world/life experiences these kids are having vary drastically in many other ways.
Here's my personal opinion on the matter:
Video Games don't cause violence specifically, but any exposure to violence is going to give people ideas so children should be kept away from this kind of media until they are mature enough to understand and discuss it meaningfully with their parents.
The Nature of Storytelling is conflict and the most obvious representation of conflict is violence... it is impossible for a story-telling medium (music, books, movies, many video games) to tell stories without conflict being the focus. As such some violence is to be expected and to deny it is to deny freedom of expression. However a rating system is appropriate and parents should heed this rating system and be careful to only allow children to have access to media that is appropriate to them.
The high school shootings we are seeing more and more today are due to a failure by the public school system to provide extra-curricular activities that will allow otherwise loners to feel included and allow creativity to be rewarded and every school should have an official Sci-Fi Club, Video Game/Computer Club, Anime Club, Robotics Team, and DnD Club. (okay, this last paragraph might be going too far, but not the feeling behind it)
So if "interactivity" is to blame then I would think that kids running around outside having sword fights with sticks and/or pointing them at other kids and pretending to fire them as guns is a lot more "interactive" then me holding a joystick or control pad ( exclude Light Guns, Steering Wheels and the Wiimote from this part of the argument ). Also, when children are "playing" these war games the target is a real flesh and blood human and not some digital representation thereof. Maybe we should prevent children from playing games in person with other children because it will cause them to be healthy and fit and trained to kill people as soon as you replace those sticks with real weapons.
Here's another one:
Psychopaths are more prone to Violence then non-Psychopaths
Psychopaths are usually Loners
More Loners Play Video Games Then Non-Loners
Psychopaths, being Loners, are Likely to Play Video Games
If all this is true, Video Game Players are More Likely to Be Psychopaths then Non-Video Game Players... a valid correlation based on the assumptions I've made.
However the "Other Side" Just see the final outcome, that "Video Game Players are More Likely to be prone to Violence then Non-Video Game Players" and see a causal relationship where there isn't one.
One More... not quite strawman but...
So if Video Games Cause Violence, Why do we see the murder rate go DOWN as the realism and violence in video games goes up? (based on video games becoming public in the late 70s)
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
The problem is that you can't really do a proper experimental study, you have to work with case research which fails in many cases to find a causal relationship when a correlation is found. You can't compare "kids from the 60 before video games were around" vs kids today who play lots of video games vs sheltered kids who live today and have been kept from video games and get meaningful results because the entire world/life experiences these kids are having vary drastically in many other ways.
Here's my personal opinion on the matter:
Video Games don't cause violence specifically, but any exposure to violence is going to give people ideas so children should be kept away from this kind of media until they are mature enough to understand and discuss it meaningfully with their parents.
The Nature of Storytelling is conflict and the most obvious representation of conflict is violence... it is impossible for a story-telling medium (music, books, movies, many video games) to tell stories without conflict being the focus. As such some violence is to be expected and to deny it is to deny freedom of expression. However a rating system is appropriate and parents should heed this rating system and be careful to only allow children to have access to media that is appropriate to them.
The high school shootings we are seeing more and more today are due to a failure by the public school system to provide extra-curricular activities that will allow otherwise loners to feel included and allow creativity to be rewarded and every school should have an official Sci-Fi Club, Video Game/Computer Club, Anime Club, Robotics Team, and DnD Club. (okay, this last paragraph might be going too far, but not the feeling behind it)
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Re: Mortal Combat
Ok, in response to the comment on straw men... Well, clearly the proponent in question is against video games as a media past time... Ignoring all their reasoning and support they generally make 1 of 2 final arguments that is acctually coherant. There are fringe elements who claim things like video games are responsible for training WTC bombers and psychopath killers, but they generally don't really present an argument for that claim, they just fearmonger, so it's really sort of worthless to argue with them. It's like trying to argue with someone that the world isn't infact flat.
As for valid claims...
1) Video games are bad because they cause, either directly or indirectly, violence.
2) Video games are bad because they cause, either directly or indirectly, irreparable emotional and psychological damage.
Statistics can be shown to support the first point. In studies children who play violent video games are more likely to be violent immediately afterwards, and compulsive players are more likely to be violent in general. Trends somewhat carry over to teenagers and adults as well, but seem to be less pronounced. There are several things wrong with the above evidence from an rationing standpoint... I won't bother to go into all the counter points I can personally think of, but basically, what we DO have is a VALID argument with VALID evidence, certainly not proven, but it's acctually an argument that can be held, or addressed.
As for the second point, I'm not really sure what evidence they are using to promote this point... I'd really like to hear more about it acctually. The argument seems valid... once again, there are alot of questions it raises, but it could conceivably be argued. If there is no real evidence to support this claim then I'd probably just dismiss it as slippery slope reasoning, but I'm not sure, it's often stated but rarely expounded apon. In the trailer, we do have that one quote from some unknown saying "whoever controls the stories controls the culture" and certainly this is at least somewhat true, gaming is having a HUGE impact on culture. If indeed psychological damage is common, then we definitely have a good reason to be angry about the scale and popularity of gaming.
Once again, dispelling the argument that gaming is bad because it's a violence training tool... well, being a training tool can't possibly make something bad, ultimately someone who is trained in something must still choose to use their training, and furthermore, highly effective training tools for constructive things are impossible to argue as evil. If terrorists used flight sim to train themselfs for WTC attacks, does that make flight sim evil? Learning to fly planes is an evil act? No. If I use a hammer to smash an infant's skull in, that doesn't make all hammers evil, it just means that like pretty much all other things, tools can be abused to evil ends. Even if we strictly focus on violent video games, and claim that they are evil because they are training violence which can only possibly be used for evil ends (which is fallacy in itself) what does that say about martial arts then?
As for valid claims...
1) Video games are bad because they cause, either directly or indirectly, violence.
2) Video games are bad because they cause, either directly or indirectly, irreparable emotional and psychological damage.
Statistics can be shown to support the first point. In studies children who play violent video games are more likely to be violent immediately afterwards, and compulsive players are more likely to be violent in general. Trends somewhat carry over to teenagers and adults as well, but seem to be less pronounced. There are several things wrong with the above evidence from an rationing standpoint... I won't bother to go into all the counter points I can personally think of, but basically, what we DO have is a VALID argument with VALID evidence, certainly not proven, but it's acctually an argument that can be held, or addressed.
As for the second point, I'm not really sure what evidence they are using to promote this point... I'd really like to hear more about it acctually. The argument seems valid... once again, there are alot of questions it raises, but it could conceivably be argued. If there is no real evidence to support this claim then I'd probably just dismiss it as slippery slope reasoning, but I'm not sure, it's often stated but rarely expounded apon. In the trailer, we do have that one quote from some unknown saying "whoever controls the stories controls the culture" and certainly this is at least somewhat true, gaming is having a HUGE impact on culture. If indeed psychological damage is common, then we definitely have a good reason to be angry about the scale and popularity of gaming.
Once again, dispelling the argument that gaming is bad because it's a violence training tool... well, being a training tool can't possibly make something bad, ultimately someone who is trained in something must still choose to use their training, and furthermore, highly effective training tools for constructive things are impossible to argue as evil. If terrorists used flight sim to train themselfs for WTC attacks, does that make flight sim evil? Learning to fly planes is an evil act? No. If I use a hammer to smash an infant's skull in, that doesn't make all hammers evil, it just means that like pretty much all other things, tools can be abused to evil ends. Even if we strictly focus on violent video games, and claim that they are evil because they are training violence which can only possibly be used for evil ends (which is fallacy in itself) what does that say about martial arts then?
Re: Mortal Combat
I pretend to be skilled, but I'm still a hack, so...