BigKid.com.au

I’ve spoken to ppl about this a fair bit in the past. It’s nearly on the same list of things not to talk about that currently includes, Religion, Politics, oh and not to forget Brad and Jen.

Studies will only find that MEDIA may or may not effect ppl. It really comes down to the person. So perhaps there needs to be a system of judging, similar to a breath test.. Where kids have to blow into a tube, if the test comes out Blue then they are more then likely not going to kill ppl if they play a murder sim (pfft). I think the age limitation on censorship is close to being correct. For instance, playing supersmash Bros Melee with my Girlfriends daughter, usually ends with her throwing the controller screaming and proceeding to beat me up. But I think this is more over being a loser, but this is an effect of the game. Had I not played the game this would not happen. Then again had I played Wiggles Pick a pair or endless other card, board or sport games and won then I would more then likely get beaten up for it and a quick tantrum.

It just comes back to the person and the personality. I remember being younger and getting cheezed off at losing. Anger and Viloence of types is an outlet for frustrations created by these games. Until you get to an age where you can control it. Again this is my experience. So I’m sure there a millions who did not get one bit peterbed when they lost three lives in a row in Galaga because of a crappy spawning position.

I’m sorry to say that the guy is wrong, as he seems highly decorated and intelligent. But I will have to direct him to an article in which a GAMER, who had played so called murder sims, went through Australian Defence Force Boot Camp Kepooka. This person based on his theory should have been mentally prepared as a killing machine. Wrong.. He wasn’t even a marksman no offense intended Trog, the army made him into a killing machine. Not games. I’m not best mates with Trog but I’m sure he has been playing games for a long time. Check out his engrossing article http://www.ausgamers.com/?agn=features&id=529479

I guess this gent would play FS2002 and instantly put it down because he saw it as a “terrorist simulator”.

Anywhoo I could 0.02c on about this forever and a day. Games are Games. I mean they don’t call Rugby or Gridiron “Simulated Mugging”. Frigging leave games alone. And the people who are too stupid to find a living doing anything but finiding a way to bring down an industry that is bigger then Hollywood, might want to have some solid proof. That person needs to ask themselves what kind of MEDIA is influencing them to hang the games industry out to dry?

I think its ironic that a person who was trained and paid his whole life to just kill people would think he is a moral authority on this.

I don’t own a gun, have never shot one and have no intention of ever using one (even for recreation) but i would choose to “simulate” murder on a daily basis. I jump with glee at my GTA3 kills of around 1000. :)

Am i immoral? No.

Am I a criminal? No.

Games are a nice scapegoat but they will never solve the underlying social problems. The sooner lawmakers realise this, the better.

This guy is such a twit. I’ve heard his twisted and seriously flawed logic before. It really pisses me off when crackpots like this guy get credible press coverage even though the man has absolutely no formal qualifications in psychology whatsoever.

Wow, he was soldier. Big deal. So was I, and I can tell you that not one videogame I’ve played has ever come close to what it’s really like to fire a gun of any sort.

If we used this guys logic, then a 10 year old kid who wins Formula 1 on his PS2 can jump into Schumackers Ferrari and blast around the track. We all know that’s absurd.

This idiot just presents worried parents in America with a scape goat. No one really knows why some kids in the US decide to blowaway their classmates and that’s half the problem. They’re clutching at straws. I just wish that some Americans would wake up to themselves. If you want kids to stop shooting each other get rid of guns. If you don’t want kids to play violent video games then implement a decent ratings system and hey, I know, maybe practice some friggin’ parenting.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Interesting how he starts the interview with almost a paragraph promoting his up-coming book release …

The guy’s in it for the money, always has been. I’m sure in a year and a half, when his next book is ready, he’ll rear his ugly head again. The site itself should be ashamed of presenting such a one-sided, ball-fondling article.

There’s not much point countering his crappy arguments in this forum, but let me ask this: if games are such good murder simulators, then why don’t we EXCLUSIVELY use them to train our soldiers? A lot cheaper than spending 50 Australian cents a round, surely?

Yep, the Colonel argues that young people need more character, lest the void usually filled by common sense is colonised by the personality traits of looney toons/pokemon/ninja turtles/power rangers. All I can say to that is - well, duh. It then becomes obvious that this all boils down to a parenting issue. Rather than attacking the real cause of school shootings - poor parenting - (because there’s a million books about parenting), it’s more provokative for the guy to write a book full of blanket statements about the video games industry, as though it were one controlled entity designed to rot the minds of children.

It’s that mindset revolving around the entertainment industry which has led to a general drop in confidence about the values of western society and thus the seeking out of scapegoats for the perceived degeneration of our civilisation. If you asked just about any person whether they thought crime rates were going up in America, I would wager most people would say yes (I myself leaned towards the yes). But when seeking out solid statistics - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm
- it becomes apparent that violent crime is actually falling, dramatically. Another odd coincidence is that the fall in violent crime rates seems to closely parallel the rise of the first person shooter (wolfenstein 3D came out in 1992, and the fall in crime starts around 93). So for a person who wanted to be reactively sensationlist in this discussion, one could argue that it’s possible violent games are a benign outlet for people who are tightly wound and might otherwise engage in real acts of violence. :)

Tesla: You hit the nail square on the head, mate. Since his retirement, Grossman has spent much of his time getting paid by various organisations to spout this drivel. He’s not, as he would have us believe, on a selfless crusade to ’save’ the children and potential ‘targets’ of this world from an untimely demise; for him, this is a money-making enterprise, and quite a profitable one at that.

I grew weary of his sanctimonious rantings and flawed logic long ago, so I’m reluctant to squander valuable time deconstructing his assertions piece by piece. Instead, I’ll direct my efforts toward praying that certain parties within our government don’t decide to jump on the already-overcrowded Grossman bandwagon.

There really is a lot to ridicule in his speech (I’m surprised they dare call it an interview). I started to worry when he referred for his scientific evidence to an organisation called “Center for Successful Parenting”, which sets of alarm bells straight away.

Further on, the diversion into Pokemon theory was extremely entertaining. And worrying - are they serious ?

However the most interesting thing is the way he portrays the TV industry as being accessories to the videogaming industries evil ways by not reporting The Truth. As if somehow TV would be scared from crucifying videogames because then TV would be next. A classic conspiracy theory, and a classic case of paranoia from Grossman.

I’ve never posted to this forum before, but after reading the responses to the “Murder Simulators” article, I felt I should at least offer a different one.

I would like to meet Lt Grossman. He sounds like an interesting person.
I do find some of his points unsubstantiated, but thought provoking nonetheless.
One particular point he makes, which I think is the main gist of his argument is this:

The instances of recent violent massacres by YOUNG perpetrators show a disturbing characteristic, extremely efficient marksmanship, that has not previously been the case, despite the availability of weapons.

This relates directly to a point he makes at the beginning, which is the emotional and psychological impact on a human of the act of killing. To kill a human, when you think about it, is the most serious thing you could probably do. You must be compelled to face your own mortality in the eyes of the victim. Anyone who kills with impunity has lost a human trait.. empathy.

Acts of uncontrollable fury, such as murders commited in the heat of a moment are not what this man is talking about. I think he is only talking about calculated murder. Not only that, but calculated murder on a large scale.

Now I want to ask a question… How often is an average person confronted with moments of sudden uncontrollable anger. Speaking for myself, I would say I get very angry to the point of wanting to hit something a few times in a year.
So far, I have been able to resist the urge to hit people.
What if one day something happens that pushes me too far?
What will I do? How will I react? What would I do If I owned a firearm?
I don’t think anybody can answer that question until it actually happens to them. And this is why I think it is important to give Lt Grossman some credit. He is dealing with a subject almost nobody has had to cope with. is it surprising that very few gamers are convinced by his arguments?

Is it also very surprising to find that a lot of people who like to play FPS games also remain unconvinced by his arguments?

I have played and sometimes still play FPS games.
I played deathmatch Quake for 2 hours every afternoon after work for many months back in 1997. I got pretty good at it. I also realised that most of what I was playing meant nothing. After mastering the skills and the maps, what was there left? Fun? For a while. But i found the FPS multiplayer experience to have little value for me.
I could do a lot of other worthwhile things with that time.

I too, have shot real firearms. I grew up in a rural area and was taught how to fire and respect smallbore rifles and shotguns.
I concur with Rob in saying that FPS offer very little in common with firing real firearms. They are loud, have a recoil, have a strong smell of burning gunpowder, and definitely have a tangible quality of destructive power about them.
The one area I think that FPS offer similarities is in the same are that LT Grossman talks about.. Targets.
When you look through the sights of a gun, what you see is a target, similar to what you see in a FPS game. The effect is enhanced with a scope.
I have hunted kangaroos with both rifle and shotgun, and have killed them. A fairly normal thing in a farming area of Australia about 10-15 years ago. I was doing this when I was 15, and it was not uncommon for younger kids to do this as well.
So I speak from experience when i say that the biggest difference in all of this debate is the emotional impact of actually firing a gun at a living thing. Every time I pointed the gun at a roo, i was faced with a life and death choice. A kangaroo is not much like a human, but it is close enough to empathise with. It is a difficult thing to condition yourself to consider a living thing as a target.

If you ask me about FPS being murder simulators, based on my experience i would say two things.
First I would say that playing FPS does not make me want to go and commit murder, buy a gun, or even hit somebody. It doesn’t. I know myself well and I do not get a bad response from playing FPS. However I started playing when I was 22, and I had already developed into most of the human I am today.

How many of the responders in this forum started playing FPS when they were 12? I can remember when I was 12, and I played any game I could get my hands on. I can’t say how different I would be today if I played FPS way back then, or younger.

Something to consider though, is the amount of parental involvement in learning to play games. When I was taught how to fire a gun, my father and grandfather were there to guide me, and they were extremely strict. They were imparting knowledge and character to me, through practice.

How often does this happen when kids play games? i would like to know.
I suspect that parents have little to impart to their children when it comes to playing video games. For a start they often cannot comprehend what it is the kids are doing.
So let’s suppose that if parents don’t actively participate in their kids gaming, where do the kids learn lessons and absorb character from (assuming they do at all). you would have to say from either the game itself or their playmates.
As a game developer, I take this conclusion seriously, because it shows clearly there is a responsibility on my shoulders for the upbringing of kids.

Secondly, I have absolutely no idea how my experience playing FPS would affect my behaviour if my normal behaviour broke down and i went postal.
See how strange a question we are dealing with? How can anyone answer this question except in hindsight?
It is going to take a lot more analysis of human behaviour to be able to provide a good answer.
This does not mean that I think Lt Grossman has got it wrong. I think he is probably an intelligent, disciplined and rational man. I do not know if he has an agenda as some people have said, but he certainly has a strong opinion.
I also give him a lot of credit for some of his arguments, because there are some thought provoking comments in that interview.

By far the most interesting thing I take from his interview is to do with the role of the game developer in all of this.

I have been working as part of games development teams since 1995, and one thing that I have noticed throughout all of this time is a difference in norms between game worlds and the so called real world.

In simple terms, game worlds are a caricature, and the norms and values they embody are inherited from a long line of game worlds dating back before the first console, back to board games, card games and other games that humans have invented to amuse themselves over time.

The thing that strikes me about these norms though, is that they have not changed very much compared to the advances in almost every other aspect of games. Visuals, physics, AI, interactivity and realism have all improved at a staggering rate, and indeed have become the “features” we look for when we buy a new game.

There are very few games that engage the players “real life” morality and reward the player for behaving positively in difficult circumstances.
The majority of games are skill based challenges. They boil down to reflex response. FPS, platformers, driving, flight and sport sims. There is a tactical element to many of them.

Why are there so many games that cater for skill and reaction based play, and so few that challenge the mind, wit and morals?

Is it because gamers prefer not to be challenged in those areas? Are they voting with their wallets?

Is it because video games have a rich heritage in reaction skill based play, and game publishers or developer are slow to evolve their game designs beyond traditional gameplay?

Is it because video games are passive? We all know games are not real things because they don’t bite back. They are suited to input only, and the only way a developer can communicate with the viewer is via images and audio (and maybe a bit of vibration through the controller.)

Still, images and audio are powerful tools. the advertising industry is a testament to that.
I think that as game developers we have an obligation to society to advance the design and craft of games in parallel with the advances in technology. State of the art games are no longer simple caricatures. Technology has taken them beyond that.
It’s high time for developer and publishers to work together to make state of the art games more sophisticated.
This is going to be tough on the developer.
Anyone who has dealt with publishers know that you can not bank on them rewarding original gameplay.
In fact, they encourage derivative gameplay.
How to get around this?
I think personally that the answer is not with the publisher, but with the developer. I think that a couple of things need to be encouraged.
First, Gamecraft. Rather than spending every work minute slaving feverishly to meet an unrealistic deadline, game developers should set aside time for advancement of gamecraft. What I am talking about is really applying R&D to the design and construction of games, not just the technology that drives them.
Second, Investing more time in pre-production.
Getting the design right before committing to final assets.
i don’t think game designs are typically explored or developed anywhere near enough before the dev. team launches themselves onto a juggernaut of deadlines, surprises and compromises.

Unfortunately, these suggestions tend to go against the work culture of games dev. houses that I have experienced, and I have experienced a few.

Still, it’s worth a try, dont you think?

(I have deliberately generalised my reference to games and game designs, because I am assuming people reading this will understand that what I have written, while specifially is about FPS, can be broadened to include any sorts of games)

Seems like my post got cut off.

Let’s see if it will give me a crack at the rest.

However I started playing when I was 22, and I had already developed into most of the human I am today.

How many of the responders in this forum started playing FPS when they were 12? I can remember when I was 12, and I played any game I could get my hands on. I can’t say how different I would be today if I played FPS way back then, or younger.

Something to consider though, is the amount of parental involvement in learning to play games. When I was taught how to fire a gun, my father and grandfather were there to guide me, and they were extremely strict. They were imparting knowledge and character to me, through practice.

How often does this happen when kids play games? i would like to know.
I suspect that parents have little to impart to their children when it comes to playing video games. For a start they often cannot comprehend what it is the kids are doing.
So let’s suppose that if parents don’t activiely participate in their kids gaming, where do the kids learn lessons and absorb character from (assuming they do at all). you would have to say from either the game itself or their playmates.
As a game developer, I take this conclusion seriously, because it shows clearly there is a responsibility on my shoulders for the upbringing of kids.

Secondly, I have absolutely no idea how my experience playing FPS would affect my behaviour if my normal behaviour broke down and i went postal.
See how strange a question we are dealing with? How can anyone answer this question except in hindsight?
It is going to take a lot more analysis of human behaviour to be able to provide a good answer.
This does not mean that I think Lt Grossman has got it wrong. I think he is probably an intelligent, disciplined and rational man. I do not know if he has an agenda as some people have said, but he certainly has a strong opinion.
I also give him a lot of credit for some of his arguments, because there are some thought provoking comments in that interview.

By far the most interesting thing I take from his interview is to do with the role of the game developer in all of this.

I have been working as part of games development teams since 1995, and one thing that I have noticed throughout all of this time is a difference in norms between game worlds and the so called real world.

In simple terms, game worlds are a caricature, and the norms and values they embody are inherited from a long line of game worlds dating back before the first console, back to board games, card games and other games that humans have invented to amuse themselves over time.

The thing that strikes me about these norms though, is that they have not changed very much compared to the advances in almost every other aspect of games. Visuals, physics, AI, interactivity and realism have all improved at a staggering rate, and indeed have become the “features” we look for when we buy a new game.

There are very few games that engage the players “real life” morality and reward the player for behaving positively in difficult circumstances.
The majority of games are skill based challenges. They boil down to reflex response. FPS, platformers, driving, flight and sport sims. There is a tactical element to many of them.

Why are there so many games that cater for skill and reaction based play, and so few that challenge the mind, wit and morals?

Is it because gamers prefer not to be challenged in those areas? Are they voting with their wallets?

Is it because video games have a rich heritage in reaction skill based play, and game publishers or developer are slow to evolve their game designs beyond traditional gameplay?

Is it because video games are passive? We all know games are not real things because they don’t bite back. They are suited to input only, and the only way a developer can communicate with the viewer is via images and audio.

Still, images and audio are powerful tools. the advertising industry is a testament to that.
I think that as game developers we have an obligation to society to advance the design and craft of games in parralel with the advances in technology. State of the art games are no longer simple caricatures. Technology has taken them beyond that.
It’s high time for developer and publishers to work together to make state of the art games more sophisticated.
This is going to be tough on the developer.
Anyone who has dealt with publishers know that you can not bank on them rewarding original gameplay.
In fact, they encourage derivative gameplay.
How to get around this?
I think personally that the answer is not with the publisher, but with the developer. I think that a couple of things need to be encouraged.
First, Gamecraft. Rather than spending every work minute slaving feverishly to meet an unrealistic deadline, game developers should set aside time for advancement of gamecraft. What I am talking about is really applying R&D to the design and construction of games, not just the technology that drives them.
Second, Investing more time in pre-production.
Getting the design right before committing to final assets.
i don’t think game designs are typically explored or developed anywhere near enough before the dev. team launches themselves onto a juggernaut of deadlines, surprises and compromises.

Unfortunately, these suggestions tend to go against the work culture of games dev. houses that I have experienced, and I have experienced a few.

Still, it’s worth a try, dont you think?

Here is the last bit. Sorry if this is too long and is considered bad posting behaviour.

Still, images and audio are powerful tools. the advertising industry is a testament to that.
I think that as game developers we have an obligation to society to advance the design and craft of games in parralel with the advances in technology. State of the art games are no longer simple caricatures. Technology has taken them beyond that.
It’s high time for developer and publishers to work together to make state of the art games more sophisticated.
This is going to be tough on the developer.
Anyone who has dealt with publishers know that you can not bank on them rewarding original gameplay.
In fact, they encourage derivative gameplay.
How to get around this?
I think personally that the answer is not with the publisher, but with the developer. I think that a couple of things need to be encouraged.
First, Gamecraft. Rather than spending every work minute slaving feverishly to meet an unrealistic deadline, game developers should set aside time for advancement of gamecraft. What I am talking about is really applying R&D to the design and construction of games, not just the technology that drives them.
Second, Investing more time in pre-production.
Getting the design right before committing to final assets.
i don’t think game designs are typically explored or developed anywhere near enough before the dev. team launches themselves onto a juggernaut of deadlines, surprises and compromises.

Unfortunately, these suggestions tend to go against the work culture of games dev. houses that I have experienced, and I have experienced a few.

Still, it’s worth a try, dont you think?

Good comments Jamomoto. However I’m not sure you can lay the lack of morally challenging content in games at the feet of the developers - I’m sure there are many many developers out there who would love to create adult content, but the chances of finding a publisher for that kind of thing is just so low.

That and the fact that everyone except gamers see games as something for children, a much discussed topic here and something that may one day be fixed by the introduction of an R rating for games. Though more than likely that will just bring more graphic violence rather than real adult content.

It’s a pity someone like ID software are so focussed on the tech, as it’s only an independent development studio like them who would have the clout to bring something different to the table and have the publishers listen.

First up, good to see a counterpoint, and HOOOEEE! you got the gift of the gab, Jamomoto. More power to you. However … :)

Most of these arguments seem to lean heavily on the idea that somehow a game can desensitize us to particular acts, for example, the act of killing. But since there has as yet been evdience to back this supposition up (asking my wife for links right now, but haven’t heard back at time of posting), then what are we arguing about?

There was a discussion on this subject at one of AGDC’s (actually, it was about censorship, but turned into a discussion about violence pretty quickly), and it involved various industry members with varying views on the subject (sorry, can’t remember who the panelists were and don’t have any links to transcripts). The reason I mention this is that it was hugely more thought provoking than the article the interviewer posted. Where are the hard questions from the interviewer? Where are the links to back up the various data and conclusions the author is drawing? It’s really little more than an advertisement of opinion. I’d rather see a healthy debate.

About games based on ethics: I think other media have been around long enough that they can move away from what may have made them initially popular, and start to explore more complex issues (for example, look at how television content has changed over the last 40 years), but only because they way was paved by other content first. Give the medium time to develop, and games will be asking the same questions any stage-play or film-noir movie or docu-drama does. But you can’t kick start that kind of development, because the society you’re feeding it to flinches (”games are _only_ for children!”).

Finally, about gamecraft: I agree in principle, but I’m not sure its necessary to separate getting better at creation from the act of creation itself. Getting the design right before comitting to assets is a tall order, and (in my opinion) requires a butt-load more experience than I or anyone I’ve worked with actually has. Besides, there is experience to be had in messing around with your game and discovering what’s actually fun about it, not just what you thought would be fun about it.

Anywhoot, sorry for the tirade :) I’d love to see this debate reignited at the next AGDC, because it will no doubt come up again and again in the press. But there are better informed people than me to do it …

]ed[

Curse this sluggish electronic medium. My wife (Sonja) just got back to me with this regarding whether she had any links to articles on the subject:

“Probably at home, but not here - like a lot of things, they can’t prove it - human behaviour experiments are very difficult to conduct to prove true such statements.

The argument is that there are too many factors that affect human behaviour to pinpoint specifically onto media violence. Millions of people see violent acts on TV/movies but they don’t act it out - the one or two that gain media attention (such as school killings) do so because people (usually local) don’t want to take responsibility for such horrendous acts and kids want to blame something that is easy to get away with (if they’ve been abused by parents, they’re probably acting out and won’t have the ability to say that they’ve been abused - they haven’t up til now).

More likely than not, human violence is predicated by a combination of factors - abuse and socialisation in the home/school, genetic predependancies and perhaps, to a very minute degree, exposure to media violence. The nature versus nurture argument should be stated - we don’t know how much of behaviour is genetics, and how much is socialisation.

Tell them to read some books on child abuse and its impacts on kids - that’ll shut them up!”

So there you go. I’ll try and get some specific web-links up here tomorrow.

To Back up Rob here. I am the biggest Racing Sim fan I know, and I don’t even know how to drive a real car.

Does this ruin my credibility?.. Nuh, that went years ago. :)

Great to see someone looking further into this.

But I guess a person that is born and brought up on Media as the only influence may see the way you handle things in role playing (which is mildly done in FPS when you take on a persona) as a means to an end. However it really needs to be a person with a screw loose to commit violence. I remember stats at one point where the games, cartoons and movies in Japan were way more violent then those in the USA but per capita there was way less violent crime.

I think what violence comes down to is a society and a time. In America they have the right to Bare Arms, some of the states have limited this right. So before games they have a society of people that are taught that part of being an American is the right to bare arms. So if computer games are teaching all these people to be a little be more “Weapns Free” (as you can instruct your soldiers in Ghost Recon [TOM CLANCY/RED STORM: Patented Covert Coup Killing Sim], so suddenly all the people are reverting back to the way they were in the “Wild Wild West”.. Now I know for a fact that Billy the Kid and several others including Jesse James were made Pong players. So I’m sure that because of this they became a little more weapons free and started shooting up the place. I have not done compulsive studies into the USA in the Wild Wild West, but I think due to a lack of present authority gangs ran rampant.

Now however in the USA authority is tight, and an active prescence. So this can not be the problem. I believe at the moment the reason behind ppl going crazy is based on some kind of “IMAGE” crisis. Take a look at the trench-coat mafia that shot up Columbine, they were into John Carmacks games, Basketball Diaries, trenchcoats…. What they did not have was an image that the rest of the school respected or even liked. They were called the “Trench coat Mafia” not because of underground hoodlum links but because they were a little bit try hard. Due to training in the use of guns (from parents) and lack of social counselling and understanding that “What other ppl think is not important”, they decided instead that they would conquer their pesky little self esteem problem with bullets.

I dunno.. Discussion of all of this is highly interesting. I’m kind of sick of it all. Really, Society is to blame. (SHAME DERRYN SHAME)

I don’t know if you missed my comment back up there, but I pasted this link ->

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

Hmm, seems like my reply to Tesla got gobbled up in the posting process, but I managed to backtrack and copy the text…

I don’t know if you missed my comment back up there, but I pasted this link ->

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

uhh.. I don’t know what’s going on. It shows up in the preview screen? Maybe it’s too long? Sorry for spamming up the board. (third and final try)

I just realised what the problem was. Using one of the arrow characters on the keyboard, I must have opened a html script tag or something. The offending arrow has now been deleted (and if the moderator wouldn’t mind, maybe you could delete my other posts).
Previous comment continued…

to the US department of Justice’s page for violent crime statistics. While it doesn’t specifically document the reasons behind each crime, the total cases of violent crime have dropped off a lot in the last decade (by 50% from the high point in 1993).

As far as I can tell, over the last decade the media has continued to become an ever greater prescence in all of our lives, and the video game industry (which is dominated by conflict based games) has reached wide market penetration in households all around the world. So in the general sense, media/game violence is not making the population more violent - at least in the criminal sense.

However (and there’s always one of those), I would agree with the guys up there that video games are giving people ideas, training reflexes, encouraging escapism, inspiring them artistically, aiding in social interaction (multiplayer games), and strategic thinking - traits which can be used for good or evil, my fellow jedi warriors. ; )

(* disclaimer:The following psychobabel is just my own layman opinion, as always) When a person is angry/enraged, their mind maps out the range of outlets they can take to release it from the system. If you’ve been trained as a buddhist you will most likely meditate to alleviate the rage, if you’re a housewife you’re more likely to get a massage, but if you’re a person who plays fps games with a realistic focus, the ideas are planted into the memory and however remote, lay out a few more options for conflict resolution. Even though 99% of us would never ever act on it, if you’re annoyed at someone it’s possible that an image of Counterstrike and you sniping that person in the head will cross your mind. To the monk and the housewife, this possibility isn’t even on their radar.

Then we have the issue of mentally deranged kids shooting up the schoolyard. I would say, yes, the trenchcoat mafia were influenced by fps games. The games had some bearing on their decision of how to release their rage upon other kids who had ostracised and bullied them. The games also helped them to develop skills in aiming and reflexes. But did the games cause the mental imabalances and homocidal tendancies to begin with? I don’t believe so. As they say in America - guns don’t kill people, people do.

If there were a way to somehow ban all guns and censor videogames of violence, it’s likely that the incidence of school shootings will decrease. But you know what would work just as well without resorting to a draconian crackdown on freedoms? If the problem kids are identified by their parents, teachers, and peers, which is something I think is probably happening more often nowadays.

I’m the designer/developer of the BigKid backend.

My apologies for long comments being truncated, but we have an outstanding bug with our database that causes this. (unfortunately it doesn’t affect the preview, only the actual saving to the DB)

It’s great to see a lively debate on this issue. If you’d like to post a long rant and continue the discussion, then feel free to submit it as a new post and we’ll add it to the front page as a new editorial thread.

The key point Sonja has made there is “Millions of people see violent acts on TV/movies but they don’t act it out”. That is the major flaw in any argument that says that there is a causal link between games, tv, etc. and the act of killing. As most posters seem to be agreeing, there has to be a solid case of abuse, social imbalance, misguided parenting, or just plain bad genes in that persons life, and the saturation effect of violent media (in whatever format) is merely a tiny element in the equation that pushes someone over the edge.

The other common thread here seems to be that those that have used a real weapon all agree that there is basically no ’skill to kill’ gained from gameplaying. The difference between a keyboard/mouse or gamepad and an actual gun is so great as to make any ‘training to kill’ argument null and void.

Many games may indeed further the already well established media acceptance of violence (and intolerance of sex - go figure), but to extrapolate that to ‘ban games and these killings will stop’ is just absurd.

Hi i suppose I am getting into this a little late, but its great to see heaps of different opinions and heaps of posts so i got excited, heres my rant:

Yes games as well all the other kinds of media do affect the people who are exposed to it. To what level of influence i suppose depends on how society as a whole is changed by it.
for an example of what i mean i would say in the 50’s two men might fight just with their fists, now after all those jackie chan flicks, bruce lee nunchucka displays and 10 yrs of arnie throwing people of cliffs not to mention streetfighter uppercuts it seems to me like if you dont kick them in the head when they are down your a wimp!.

So though i wouldnt go outright and say ooh games are bad and we should all buy nintendo game cubes and watch our brains melt as we throw turnips at the 4000th turtle… but what i would say is if you play games and like the violent ones you probably like martial arts watching boxing and other blood sports and probably have a wish to shoot a real gun.
if its at someone else is the real question!
thats my rant.
carefulconan.

beatiful, I currently live in a rural area of Montana in the States. and not only have i been hunting at the 10, but i also am an avid paintball player. No computer game can even begin to pray at duplicating what it is like to have a bruise against your shoulder from not holding tight enough to a shotgun. and neither can one duplicate the sting of being hit with a hot paintball gun. and while i know that people will say that games are not about being impacted physically, the difference is quite significant. after you get hit with a paintball, you suddenly come off your adrenaline high and head for the safe zone.

now, an FPS cannot teach you how to handle a gun or how to even turn off the safety. that takes prior experience to know how that works. And, have you ever played an FPS where your opponent doesn’t shoot BACK? I can’t find one. And an FPS cant duplicate the intelligence and spontanuity of the human brain, especially in crisis.

and I will continue defend all of my hobbies from being outlawed until given conclusive proof that the accusers are right.