Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: Bdoomed on May 19, 2007, 06:29:26 AM
-
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!)
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"todays child who is much more likely"
Stats?
-
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.
-
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.
-
"todays child who is much more likely"
Stats?
The games didn't exist in earlier generations.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The US has been becoming steadily less violent (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) 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.
-
wakela i love you. haha. That link is very interesting, and I can certainly use it to my advantage in my paper! (The darn thing is due Wednesday, and I have not started it yet because... oh, i have 3 OTHER papers to write! ...kill me now... its stressing me out, and i don't get stressed!)
anyways, some of you (or one of you... either way) in other countries (what? there are other countries than America?) are becoming kind of mad/peeved/annoyed at us Americans for discussing American issues, and consequently I feel bad for starting this topic now (but it was in the name of knowledge!!!). Anyways, I would like to know the stats, opinions, etc. of people in other countries too, mainly Canada and the UK. You guys have the same general games as Americans do, am I correct? Yet your violence rates are much lower. (and i hate using 'your'... I don't like grouping so many at a time)
-
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
As someone who has slaughtered thousands of imaginary knights, cowboys, Indians, monsters, aliens and various other foes as a child--with far more gruesome fates in the clarity of my mind than the pixelated deaths currently available--I don't think there's much merit it your argument. Who hasn't played "soldier" fighting "bad guys?" We've all held the squirt gun imagining it was the real thing, and chopped through villians with a wooden sword. Violence is part of childhood play.
If anything, I'd say video games are making kids less imagative. They've always been violent.
-
okay you've confused me... i'm not arguing against you, especially in that quote... that quote is about having consequences for violent actions in games, as a counterargument to a post about how videogames are teaching kids violence without consequence.
anyways
We've all held the squirt gun imagining it was the real thing, and chopped through villians with a wooden sword. Violence is part of childhood play.
do you mind if i quote you on this in my paper?
-
okay you've confused me... i'm not arguing against you, especially in that quote... that quote is about having consequences for violent actions in games, as a counterargument to a post about how videogames are teaching kids violence without consequence.
anyways
We've all held the squirt gun imagining it was the real thing, and chopped through villians with a wooden sword. Violence is part of childhood play.
do you mind if i quote you on this in my paper?
Sure thing. I'm not sure how much of an authority I am, but go ahead.
As far as no-consequences violence, my point was how many of those imaginary villians did you think I gave a second thought to after I "killed" them? There was no consequences there, just a boy pretending to be a hero by vanquishing the enemy.
-
Right. Which attitude (that the opponents were evil and disappear after slaying) is probably at the root of a lot of our culture's acceptance of violence.
However, it's hardly a new idea.
In order for anyone to argue (not that anyone here is) that video games cause violence, one would have to first believe that America today is more violent than our historical forebears, and idealizations of 1950 aside, that's just a silly idea.
-
Right. Which attitude (that the opponents were evil and disappear after slaying) is probably at the root of a lot of our culture's acceptance of violence.
Because no one plays soldier in Japan? What are comparing this to?
-
There is also the issue of desensitization. Images that would have emotionally upset me and my friends in the early '70s don't phase kids today. That's not just a video game issue, but in all media.
When people used to tell me that we are more violent than we used to be, I counter by telling them that the world is no worse than it has ever been, but thanks to our improved communication technology, we just hear a lot more about it so it seems more violent.
-
Because no one plays soldier in Japan? What are comparing this to?
I add "in our culture" whenever I think I'm making an assertion that couldn't be held static across times and cultures. Certainly, I'm not comparing us to Japan, but I'm not going to take the stand that all places and times have been as violent as ours.
I think our immediate Western forebears, though, were very comfortable with violence.
-
There is also the issue of desensitization. Images that would have emotionally upset me and my friends in the early '70s don't phase kids today. That's not just a video game issue, but in all media.
Totally. But to some extent this seems, again, like a class/race issue (there certainly were kids who were experiencing daily violence in the early '70s, even though we don't tend to talk about them, because they're not the "default" -- white, middle class, etc.). And, then, also, it seems like a blip. Most times and places haven't had protected childhoods (our conception of childhood is, what, Victorian?), and in a lot of times and places, violence has been relatively commonplace (if you're thinking - say - the middle ages, where the nobility was allowed to dispose of serfs in basically whatever way they wished... or, heaven forbid, during slavery in the south, there were lots of abuses of human bodies available for everyone to see, and become desensitized to).
More or less what I'm saying is that we tend to treat the state of non-exposure to violence as the default, and exposure to violence as a new invention, when it seems to have operated in the opposite direction. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for non-exposure to violence (certainly of the real kind!), but the idea that our culture is "more violent" because of violent images is pretty ahistorical.
-
While I'm more concerned about the desensitization to sex (see below), I think that anything "bad" needs to be taken in the context of the people consuming it. If kids are consuming violent content without parental supervision, then they have no one to look to when they see something violent.
I watched plenty of violent stuff as a kid -- pro wrestling before it was widely "accepted" to be fake, for example, and the end of Star Trek II was pretty bloody. But I never turned out to be a violent person.
When GTA and games like it are used as babysitters, that's when you see the problems.
I'm also concerned that "watching out for violence to protect our children" is the rallying cry for most legislators trying to take away the freedoms of intelligent citizens to enjoy what they want to enjoy as long as it's not causing direct harm to anyone else.
For example, legislating sex. Nice dovetail there, no?
I think that, more than violence, I'm concerned about desensitization to sex. Not that I want to see less of it -- I *heart* sex ;D -- but the mystery of sex has been lost. As a kid, I thought sex was pretty damn mysterious (the "having sex", not the biology; school taught me that part). If I was 11 or 12 now, I would already know what sex was and might even have had it.
There's just something about the mystery of sex that is alluring to me, and I'm sad that today's kids won't have that same experience when they're old enough.
-
While I'm more concerned about the desensitization to sex (see below), I think that anything "bad" needs to be taken in the context of the people consuming it. If kids are consuming violent content without parental supervision, then they have no one to look to when they see something violent.
I watched plenty of violent stuff as a kid -- pro wrestling before it was widely "accepted" to be fake, for example, and the end of Star Trek II was pretty bloody. But I never turned out to be a violent person.
When GTA and games like it are used as babysitters, that's when you see the problems.
Lack of parental supervision, or "a voice of wisdom" can cause all sorts of problems.
I'm also concerned that "watching out for violence to protect our children" is the rallying cry for most legislators trying to take away the freedoms of intelligent citizens to enjoy what they want to enjoy as long as it's not causing direct harm to anyone else.
For example, legislating sex. Nice dovetail there, no?
I think that, more than violence, I'm concerned about desensitization to sex. Not that I want to see less of it -- I *heart* sex ;D -- but the mystery of sex has been lost. As a kid, I thought sex was pretty damn mysterious (the "having sex", not the biology; school taught me that part). If I was 11 or 12 now, I would already know what sex was and might even have had it.
There's just something about the mystery of sex that is alluring to me, and I'm sad that today's kids won't have that same experience when they're old enough.
I'm not really concerned about the "demystifying" as much as the "de-importantizing" of it (to make up a horrible term - someone please give me a better one.) I don't think sex should be portrayed as "no big deal" because it can be a big, life changing event. I'm all for sex education. More knowledge is always better, especially about important issues.
As a country, I think the US is much more neurotic about sex than they are about violence. One big difference is that people need to have sex. They don't need to be violent. Purging violence from the world would be a good thing. Purging sex would not.
-
As a country, I think the US is much more neurotic about sex than they are about violence. One big difference is that people need to have sex. They don't need to be violent. Purging violence from the world would be a good thing. Purging sex would not.
Yeah. It sucks.
One bell I was always ringing on my blog is that we're not high enough on the hierarchy of needs to be the kind of culture that we think we have. We're too worried about being accepted by other people -- and in many cases just getting food and shelter -- to even think about self-actualization.
I don't know why I just said that. I had a point, but I forgot it. I work in a newsroom; it's pretty noisy in here, and I get distracted.
Anyway, until we're higher up on the hierarchy, we as an American culture will never stop legislating and moralizing over sex. Who my gay friends boink doesn't matter to anyone but my gay friends and the people they are boinking. Who my kinky friends tie up and spank doesn't matter to anyone but my kinky friends and the people they tie up and spank. And so on.
It's just that it's so easy to legislate against sex because what lawmaker's going to come out and say "I think it should be permissible for men to have sex with other men as long as both are above the age of consent in this state"? Even in non-Bible-Belt states, it's still a risky proposition.
-
I'm not really concerned about the "demystifying" as much as the "de-importantizing" of it (to make up a horrible term - someone please give me a better one.) I don't think sex should be portrayed as "no big deal" because it can be a big, life changing event. I'm all for sex education. More knowledge is always better, especially about important issues.
My shot at the word you're looking for: trivializing.
-
I'm not really concerned about the "demystifying" as much as the "de-importantizing" of it (to make up a horrible term - someone please give me a better one.) I don't think sex should be portrayed as "no big deal" because it can be a big, life changing event. I'm all for sex education. More knowledge is always better, especially about important issues.
My shot at the word you're looking for: trivializing.
DING! DING! DING!
Anarkey wins the prize!
Thank you. That's exactly the word I was looking for.
-
DING! DING! DING!
Anarkey wins the prize!
Thank you. That's exactly the word I was looking for.
Oh yay! I've always wanted the prize. :)
-
I generally disagree. I think the reason we're neurotic about sex is that we insist on making it mystical and secret. It's, you know, part of life. This is OT, though; is everyone okay with the derail?
-
DING! DING! DING!
Anarkey wins the prize!
Thank you. That's exactly the word I was looking for.
Oh yay! I've always wanted the prize. :)
I am the one / the only one / I am the God of Kingdom Come / Gimme the prize!