Video games and violence...

[Bdoomed]

Okay, I am writing a paper for the end of the year in my english class about videogames and violence.  In the paper, I've decided to argue against the argument that videogames promote violence.
My main argument centers around violence in America, and that the cause cannot be videogames because many other countries (ie. Canada) have the same videogames and play as much as Americans do, and their levels of violence are much lower than America's.

Anyways I would like to gather some more opinions on the matter, and I'm sure many of you have great opinions.  Now I fully admit that while videogames are obviously not the main cause of violence in America, they most likely dont help the situation.  But again, I'd like to hear other opinions.

(im not trying to instigate argument!!! heh please tell me if this'll get bad General!)

[Kurt Faler]

Let me start out with the context of my age, which is 35. I got my first 2600 when I was about 8, but you couldn't really say violent graphic games showed up until I was about 20. So, you would think I grew up without the influence of violet play maybe. Wrong. Do people not remember back when kids played outside? For every violent game on the store shelves today there was a toy gun in its place 25 years ago. Kids play has always mimicked violent behavior to some extent. <This could go off on a tangent about the nature of play and social development not just in humans but in mammals in general here>. The only real change has been the medium in which it is expressed, and the social consequences of that change. I don't think its the violence in the games that cause issue, but the social isolation that they can promote. I think its quite possible that with the FPS genera seeing a shift to almost exclusive on-line play, this might not even be an issue for much longer (but you will always have the anomalous nut-job).

[FNH]

I believe that Video Game violence is a minor contributing factor to the violence in society.  This opinion is ventured with the further belief that the Violence in games has only become acceptable because of the rise in violence outside of the games.

Games in this context are aided and assisted by the culture in which they reside.  Violence on TV, in Films, in News Papers and magazines all constribute to the escalating violence in society.  The relationship is cyclical.

As peoples willingness to allow these images and activities to take place allows them to grow, so the violence around them grows.

I believe that the effect of Video Games is an increasing element as more children spend more time in front of them.  this is a relatively new phenomena as the Video Games industry itself is young.

The effect of Video games is stronger than that of Television in previous generations as its content is more extreme (  Television has generally been conservative ), and is demonstrably more absorbing of the conscience.

[Kurt Faler]

The effect of Video games is stronger than that of Television in previous generations as its content is more extreme (  Television has generally been conservative ), and is demonstrably more absorbing of the conscience.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Violence on TV and in movies is highly realistic and most often not goal related. Violence in games often is directly related to the goal of the game, and very distinguishable from real life. I don't see much difference in a game between trying to get around the defensive line in Madden 07 and flanking the bad guys in Ghost Recon 2. Now, there are games out there that are just violence run amok. GTA is often pointed at but given a choice of that or watching Scarface, I would let a 15 year old play GTA. Violence in no-interactive entertainment is often much more brutal, random, and glorified.

[FNH]

The effect of Video games is stronger than that of Television in previous generations as its content is more extreme (  Television has generally been conservative ), and is demonstrably more absorbing of the conscience.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Violence on TV and in movies is highly realistic and most often not goal related. Violence in games often is directly related to the goal of the game, and very distinguishable from real life. I don't see much difference in a game between trying to get around the defensive line in Madden 07 and flanking the bad guys in Ghost Recon 2. Now, there are games out there that are just violence run amok. GTA is often pointed at but given a choice of that or watching Scarface, I would let a 15 year old play GTA. Violence in no-interactive entertainment is often much more brutal, random, and glorified.

Interesting choices.  In the context of the games mentioned ( Maddon is American Football? Ghost Recon armed conflict? ) I see a significant difference in thier effect on the child. That said the effect is still relatively minor.

However let me make what I was thinking in my first post clearer.  Compare Saturday morning childrens television of the 80's watched in the Living Room, to todays child who is much more likely to be alone in thier room fully interacting with a Game including violence.

[Rachel Swirsky]

"todays child who is much more likely"

Stats?

[Kurt Faler]

However let me make what I was thinking in my first post clearer.  Compare Saturday morning childrens television of the 80's watched in the Living Room, to todays child who is much more likely to be alone in thier room fully interacting with a Game including violence.

I can agree totally with this statement but I think for a different reason than you make it. I believe its the alone in the room part that causes socially maladjusted kids, not the activity itself. This is what I was trying to say when I mentioned the rise in on-line game play. Most FPS games are focusing on on-line play, where you can talk to the people you play with. I think this is MUCH more healthy than playing the same game for hours and days alone in single player mode.

[jrderego]

You should read Harold Schechter's book "Savage Pastime: A cultural history of violence in America"

http://haroldschechter.com/books/bookmain.html

I watched a program on CSPAN yesterday afternoon discussing the FCC Study on television violence, if you can find that online it's worth a watch as well.

[FNH]

"todays child who is much more likely"
Stats?

The games didn't exist in earlier generations. 

[FNH]

Most FPS games are focusing on on-line play, where you can talk to the people you play with. I think this is MUCH more healthy than playing the same game for hours and days alone in single player mode.

I agree.  Although I suspect/fear that if the game itself is violent then there may be a psychological impression of pier acceptance of violent behaviour.  I dont want of over emphasise that however.

[Rachel Swirsky]

So you mean:

they are much more likely than previous generations to be playing games instead of watching TV

and not:

they are much more likely to be playing games than they are to be watching TV?

[Bdoomed]

I agree.  Although I suspect/fear that if the game itself is violent then there may be a psychological impression of pier acceptance of violent behaviour.  I dont want of over emphasise that however.

what are you saying here? acceptance of violence? like being jaded towards seeing someone be shot?  If that is what you are saying, i think i disagree.  while it is easier to hear about people being shot, and see it in movies and games, i'm pretty sure that seeing someone shot or blown up right in front of you would not be something easy to take.

[SFEley]

"todays child who is much more likely"
Stats?

The games didn't exist in earlier generations. 

In the 80s?  Dude, I was a kid in the 1980s.  We certainly did have video games, and we played them a lot.  I can't remember a time when there wasn't an Atari 2600 (or its Sears clone) in the house.  And seeing Xevious on a friend's new Nintendo NES was a watershed moment for me.

Much as I hate to admit to being an "earlier generation," I really am.  At 33, I'm currently the average age for a U.S. video game player -- and we've been playing them all our lives.

[FNH]

So you mean:
they are much more likely than previous generations to be playing games instead of watching TV
and not:
they are much more likely to be playing games than they are to be watching TV?

Yes thats what I meant

[FNH]

I agree.  Although I suspect/fear that if the game itself is violent then there may be a psychological impression of pier acceptance of violent behaviour.  I dont want of over emphasise that however.

what are you saying here? acceptance of violence? like being jaded towards seeing someone be shot?  If that is what you are saying, i think i disagree.  while it is easier to hear about people being shot, and see it in movies and games, i'm pretty sure that seeing someone shot or blown up right in front of you would not be something easy to take.

Real life would be a differn't story.

[FNH]

In the 80s?  Dude, I was a kid in the 1980s.  We certainly did have video games, and we played them a lot.  I can't remember a time when there wasn't an Atari 2600 (or its Sears clone) in the house.  And seeing Xevious on a friend's new Nintendo NES was a watershed moment for me.

Forgive me, I am not making myself clear both yourself and palimpsest proof of that.

Indeed there were consoles in the 80's.  My point is that violence was not the same.  The comparison between "Paperboy"  on the NES and a modern 3D multi polygon photo realistic blood fest is significant in the context.

[Michael]

Video Games appear to be the new "Silicone" -- every few years, trial lawyers stumble upon a new gimmick to extort money from one group and give it to another group, whilst keeping 1/2 for themselves.  Anyone with "deep pockets" (enough money to be worth taking) is at risk. 

The new trick is that whenever an individual commits a violent or antisocial act, if it can be determined that at some point in the past he played a violent video game, the game author can now be sued for "training" and "indoctinating" said impressionable individual -- making him violent.

It is working.  $$$ is flowing--these are the drums you hear beating.  However, I totally disagree with the premise.

[ClintMemo]

I'm 42 years old and remember the days before pong, much less the Atari 2600.
When we were kids we played outside.  Our favorite games included "guns", "capture the flag" and a schoolyard favorite "kill the guy with the ball."
I'm sure we were just as violent as today's kids are.  However, do to demographic changes, we had more adult supervision.  Most of us didn't have two working parents.  The other big difference between our schoolyard games and FPS's is that there are no consequences.  If you were playing a game and you got too rough and hurt your friend, you felt bad. You were sorry.  (and there is a good chance you got in trouble because someone's stay home mom was probably keeping an eye on you.)  FPS is violence (albeit simulated) without consequence.  Some cartoons can be the same way and I usually steer my child away from them.  I'll let her watch Batman or Kim Possible or most Warner brothers cartoons (where there are clearly heroes and villians and the villians usually get what they deserve ) but for a long time I kept her away from Tom and Jerry. Tom and Jerry is violence without consequence.

[slic]

I'm throwing my weight behind ClintMemo on this - and not just because we are close to the same age

Violence without consequence.  I remember a long time ago playing cowboys and indians - they had toy guns, we had a toy bows.  I managed to make a couple of arrows out of dowels.  They say ka-pow, peshu, and we actually launched the arrows.  Couldn't have been more than scratches (they were unsharpened) - did we even get read the riot act!

My son wanted to try Age of Empires, and later in play saw no problem with "killing" a bunch of peasants to get rid of a wolf.  We had a talk to make sure he understood the difference between people and virtual people.

[Rachel Swirsky]

Most of us didn't have two working parents

This is class-based, though. There's never been a time in American history where the majority of households were able to afford a woman staying at home.

[Bdoomed]

Most of us didn't have two working parents

This is class-based, though. There's never been a time in American history where the majority of households were able to afford a woman staying at home.

yes and no.  i go to a REALLY rich school, and there are still moms who work all day.  To me, the combination of money and the lack of supervision is a terrible thing, honestly the people who don't do drugs and drink and party are in the minority. (i am part of that minority)

Violence without consequence...
tom and jerry? i watched tom and jerry constantly as a child, and maybe its just me, but I never got the impression of violence without consequence.  It was just another cartoon that was very funny and entertaining.  plus for everything that jerry did to tom, tom did back to jerry, and vice versa.  "dont do what you wouldnt want done back to you"  thats consequence if i ever did see it.

as for today's games, Grand Theft Auto for instance, for every person you kill or whatever you do, your police meter rises, and eventually you can have the whole military on your back... thats consequence.  Games without consequence usually involve military action.  Fighting the bad guys.

And really anything that would teach violence without consequence just needs a parent to teach their kids how the world really works. but then again i'm probably very wrong on that.

[ClintMemo]

Most of us didn't have two working parents

This is class-based, though. There's never been a time in American history where the majority of households were able to afford a woman staying at home.

I'll defer to your expertise on that. I can only relate my own experience.

[ClintMemo]

i go to a REALLY rich school, and there are still moms who work all day.  To me, the combination of money and the lack of supervision is a terrible thing, honestly the people who don't do drugs and drink and party are in the minority. (i am part of that minority)

This points out a big generational difference as I see it. 
In 1970, in the typical suburban family:
Dad went to work
Mom stayed home
The three kids went to school
They had one car (with an AM radio)
They had two TV's (and one was black and white)

In 2006, in the typical suburban family:
Dad goes to work
Mom goes to work
The two kids go to school and then to after school care
They have two cars, each with AM/FM/CD (and one is probably an SUV or minivan)
They have four TV's, a game system, two MP3 players, broadband internet and two cell phones.

It now takes two incomes and one less child to maintain a satisfactory standard of living.
(Note: I'm not bashing women who work. I'm bashing a society that requires both parents to work.)

Violence without consequence...
tom and jerry? i watched tom and jerry constantly as a child, and maybe its just me, but I never got the impression of violence without consequence.  It was just another cartoon that was very funny and entertaining.  plus for everything that jerry did to tom, tom did back to jerry, and vice versa.  "dont do what you wouldnt want done back to you"  thats consequence if i ever did see it.

There was no consequence in that they were back to normal in the next scene.  They also bashed each other for no other reason than they were Tom and Jerry, but that's a different issue that all cartoons have.  I don't remember there being a lot of plot to a Tom and Jerry cartoon.  At the end of the cartoon, everything is at it was.  Contrast that with a typical Bugs Bunny cartoon.  Bugs is minding his own business when someone enters the scene and tries to harm him. He retaliates. Sometimes he drives the offender away, but usually the offender returns to try again.  The cycle repeats several times. Eventually, Bugs drives him away and lives happily ever after (or until the next cartoon, at least.)

as for today's games, Grand Theft Auto for instance, for every person you kill or whatever you do, your police meter rises, and eventually you can have the whole military on your back... thats consequence.  Games without consequence usually involve military action.  Fighting the bad guys.

And really anything that would teach violence without consequence just needs a parent to teach their kids how the world really works. but then again i'm probably very wrong on that.

What happens if you mess up in the game? Reload and try again.  I admit that teaching people to try again when they fail is a good thing, but the message of "no problem. we can just do it again" isn't always appropriate.  It teaches kids that any problem can just be undone - easily.  There is no "Undo" button on reality.

[Rachel Swirsky]

i go to a REALLY rich school, and there are still moms who work all day.

I didn't mean to imply that there are no working women who are wealthy. But there have always been working women who are poor.

[wakela]

The US has been becoming steadily less violent since the early 90's. 
I don't think I need to provide a link to show that time spent with video games has been increasing dramatically since then.   Correlation is not the same as causation, but still...

Millions of people play members of the Grand Theft Auto series, which encourage the worst moral values of any popular game I know of ("Now, go kill as many Haitians as possible.")  If this was causing violence I think we would have seen something.

I remember we talked about violence and TV in college.  Seems some studies showed that some young children become more violent after watching violent TV, and other studies showed some kids get less violent.  As if The violence they experienced vicariously acted as a catharsis.