VeryGooster
Banned
Wow. I had no idea this stemmed from a segment she did. I'll add these to OP.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Katie Couric asks to tweet the positives of violent games.
- Thread starter VeryGooster
- Start date
Wow. I had no idea this stemmed from a segment she did. I'll add these to OP.
kouric to gaf
Hook, line and stinker
Ol No Bones
Banned
The media is really good at painting pictures unfortunately much of the time the picture is not of reality or they refuse to finish the sentence. We should try to persuade people to defend the small areas left where government isn't as involved. The government could destroy the gaming industry if the media is able to gather public support for the idea that they are dangerous.
Aressa
You can't die before your death
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
The way she's asked the question makes no sense and the format she's chosen prevents adequate communication.
The issue of whether games cause violence is independent of whether there are positives as well, so the question itself is illogical and will lead to illogical discussion.
The other problem is she's asking "what's the positive side of violent games" when the key question is "what's the positive side of games (overall) that counterbalances what appears from the outside to be an obsession with sociopathic violence?" If the violence is in fact harmful in any way, then the positives need to outweigh those harms in order for gaming to be a defensible hobby.
Games are overwhelmingly violent because violence and conflict are relatively easy to simulate, not because people who create or play videogames are all bloodthirsty psychopaths. If you have no knowledge of videogames, it's easy to get the impression that the latter is true.
The tweets she gets in response aren't going to convey any of this.
edit: Good response by Greg Miller, given the character limit. It gets at the idea that violence is a sideshow rather than the main event. It contributes to the entertainment without being the sole draw.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Have violent video games or MarioKart caused more real-life violence?
Because I've seen some bad things go down after that blue shell hits.
Because I've seen some bad things go down after that blue shell hits.
came to post this
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Cmon Greg be smarter than that. You feel right into it.
Uh, okay. I have no idea what world you're living where the U.S. government is going to destroy an involved first-world hobby and -huge- entertainment industry that contributes to making people indifferent to the actual horrible things the government does everyday.
RustyNails
Member
#nofunallowed
Couldn't one argue that certain games teach the consequences of violent actions and behavioral patterns? You could cite GTAIV as an example that illustrates how one can never truly escape a violent past and that it eventually catches up to you, resulting in suffering not only for yourself, but also your loved ones.
You could have told the same story of a guy who made terrible choices attempting to redeem himself through a surrogate daughter without schlocky zombie violence. Would it have been as interesting to a mass audience? Maybe, maybe not.
Every new form of media/influence should be watched closely by everyone. I'm not sure what you mean by wise up, but I've yet to see clear scientific findings that say media has absolutely no effect on the people consuming them. So while I agree that it'd be bad to say that media is corrupting the youth, I'd also say it'd be just as ridiculous to just claim the opposite and say We're done here.
I cut down so many fucking trees in Candy Box...
Didn't answer the question and the "most gamers" point is questionable at best.
If you guys feel so strongly about it, send her a message. You're complaining about character count as if there were no other way to address this or answer the question? Really? That's about the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. You're talking to yourselves in this thread and no one cares.
partyphone
Banned
They also frame the debate as if the two sides of it were equal and choosing a side was a matter of preference. How about we look at the scientific data on the subject, Katie?
CambriaRising
Member
You could tell lots of stories without lots of things.
Your argument is completely irrelevant.
And to someone like her, who ostensibly is someone who does not play video games, it would appear as if it is.
No one should care about Katie Couric asking us to justify an enjoyment. What we should care about is the awful 'news' segment that started the outrage in the first place.
Pyramid head
Banned
Sickeningly loaded question and entirely unrelated to the subject in her first sentence.
But anyway, why is it only violent games that get attention? I've never experienced any sort of bloodlust after untold hours spent killing all manner of virtual dudes in games like Devil May Cry, Bayonetta and God Of War, I find them to be a pleasant and cathartic experience. But I have experienced elevated anger levels when starved of a certain type of block in Tetris or cheated out of a win in Motorstorm by it's extreme rubber banding AI.
But anyway, why is it only violent games that get attention? I've never experienced any sort of bloodlust after untold hours spent killing all manner of virtual dudes in games like Devil May Cry, Bayonetta and God Of War, I find them to be a pleasant and cathartic experience. But I have experienced elevated anger levels when starved of a certain type of block in Tetris or cheated out of a win in Motorstorm by it's extreme rubber banding AI.
Maybe, but some of the choices you have to make do add a layer of intensity to the narrative the first time you play it, especially towards the end.
Irrelevant to you? That's fine. You've done nothing but react rather than discuss. The subject is violence and it's value in creating a moving narrative. I don't think it has inherent value or needs to be there to create 'fun'.
Here's something to tweet her:
In most recent FTC Mystery Shopper report, video game stores do better than anyone else at preventing underage buyers from buying restricted content. No, it's not a "positive of violence" (which is a stupid question), but it does show that focusing on video games is a bit myopic.
In most recent FTC Mystery Shopper report, video game stores do better than anyone else at preventing underage buyers from buying restricted content. No, it's not a "positive of violence" (which is a stupid question), but it does show that focusing on video games is a bit myopic.
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
Well if that isn't the worlds most loaded question then I don't know what is.
"What are the positives to violent video games?"
ANYTHING you say in 140 characters or less is going to get hilariously contorted and twisted as appearing pro violence, even just saying "it's fun" and "entertainment" makes you look like a blood thirsty hun looking to get your hands on your next victim.
This is awful Katie Couric, and I refuse to answer this question. Why not ask something less loaded like "Why do you play violent video games?"
"What are the positives to violent video games?"
ANYTHING you say in 140 characters or less is going to get hilariously contorted and twisted as appearing pro violence, even just saying "it's fun" and "entertainment" makes you look like a blood thirsty hun looking to get your hands on your next victim.
This is awful Katie Couric, and I refuse to answer this question. Why not ask something less loaded like "Why do you play violent video games?"
if you were to show a vertical slice of bioshock infinite, you wouldnt come away blown away by story
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
It's a losing battle to respond to her tweet. Brevity is not always best in an argument hence the problem with responding via Twitter.
You're being hyperbolic.
SolidSnakex
Member
What good will it do? If she were actually interested in the other side of the conversation then it would've been presented on her show the first time around. From reading articles on the show it appears to have been one hour of everyone having the same tone and message. She'll likely bring those same "experts" on and they'll swat down anything said and then roll right into the conversation that they had on this particular episode.
VeryGooster
Banned
Maybe Couric should share her own gaming experiences (if any... lol). That's always the odd thing about this debate. The 'opposing' side never seem to speak from any experience. You may as well post a gif from a game and try to argue against its content.
This is an interesting comment from Stephen Totilo on the Kotaku breakdown:
This is an interesting comment from Stephen Totilo on the Kotaku breakdown:
Exactly. Katie doesn't play games so all she can understand is what she is visually shown, like watching a clip from a CG movie. Concepts of story, interactivity, agency, problem solving, competition, etc. are completely lost. From a non-gamer's point of view, watching a 5 minute clip of DOOM is like watching a weird snuff film, its appeal completely foreign and odd.
CambriaRising
Member
You are mixing your arguments. Story and Fun are not the same concepts. Like I said in my original post, you can tell a lot of stories without supplementary things, so your argument is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
It's exactly what I said before, why are people having such a defensive attitude to this. If there is nothing wrong with it then why get upset? Is she setting up something, definitely, BUT if there is nothing wrong with it then it shouldn't really matter and just give your opinion without getting all "oh yeah!! well whats wrong with your shitty talk show huhuhuh!!" it's childish.
Is it really worth getting bogged down with pedantry when we could just be having a frank discussion? Are you the arbiter of what's a meaningful contribution and what isn't?
My thoughts on video games and violence are pretty much this. Do games increase violent behavior? No, we have studies that even prove this. Do video games increase overall aggression? I'd honestly say absolutely. But the jump from aggression to physical violence is down to the person. The game probably didn't help, but it's no different than any other competitive activity. I've watched people display legitimate aggression while watching their favorite sports team, human nature.
I never get these arguments really . If you wouldn't buy violent games for your kids then these games wouldn't be made. I fairly sure the largest part of the market is still 18 and under.
what do these people want the government to treat them as little kids and say .no no now ... You can't have that.
what do these people want the government to treat them as little kids and say .no no now ... You can't have that.
flyinpiranha
Member
I disagree. "Violence" is something that can be considered to have its own value. The use of it in specific circumstances and the lack of use others. I'm not saying that it needs to be everywhere or in everything, but saying it has no value in and of itself is just finding 'alternatives' to something you may not enjoy.
I personally would hate to watch a Bruce Lee movie without fighting. Could it be done? Sure. But violence has endured in human nature, until it's wiped out of our genes, we'll see it reflected in our art and pastimes. Human nature is creating the violence around us (art, movies, music, fighting competitions, games, books, etc ... ). The mediums aren't creating violent people (IMO).
It's the same reason some people want to be UFC fighters and others want to be computer programmers. Each person enjoys something different.
Sounds like the Obama administration to me.. don't forget that health plan.. they will decide your life because, you know a 65+ older human that needs X surgery doesn't fall under "the plan" Better get your funeral arrangements in order!!!
Edit:
That's why I own a Wii U Katie...
chicagocubsfan
Member
I guess it's stemming from this episode on May 1st.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h790gvLuDzM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwR2zjzYgjI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&feature=iv&src_vid=UwR2zjzYgjI&v=R9JJQbLCsv4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h790gvLuDzM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwR2zjzYgjI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&feature=iv&src_vid=UwR2zjzYgjI&v=R9JJQbLCsv4
Like the hat?
Banned
Someone just post "it gives me a chance to act out all my violent rape murder fantasies GRRRARRROWWWWGHHHHH!!!!!!!!" like she's looking for
GoddyofAus
Banned
My response would be: They justify my position of not having to justify myself to you.
Don't forget Mario Party. It's those Nintendo games that the media needs to look out for.
I'm not saying -all- violence is inherently and artistically worthless and can't be addressed in an artful way. I guess I'm more speaking to the violence without consequence that a game like God of War leans to (male power trip-type stuff). It absolutely depends on who's delivering the message. And please, this is not an invitation for someone to tell me about how blah blah in Kratos' backstory caused him to do X and justifiably roll on a bunch of dudes. Really. It's sumptuous violence for the sake of sumptuous violence.
Violence in media does have effects on people, of course. In particular, standardizing violence, and making it acceptable/normal isn't good. However, that has nothing to do with most violent games or movies. The whole of society, people in a position of power, general media would be responsible for that. The violence is usually in games and movies for a reason, and it's usually defined as something extreme, excessive, 'bad'.
However, the psychological violence/terror in movies and games is much worse than violence itself, and probably has a higher chance of "affecting" people. The games and movies that are capable of making your empathize with the world, characters, etc. But that aspect of media is rarely discussed for some reason. It's much harder to define, or, it's at least far less tangible than "violent games/movies".
However, the psychological violence/terror in movies and games is much worse than violence itself, and probably has a higher chance of "affecting" people. The games and movies that are capable of making your empathize with the world, characters, etc. But that aspect of media is rarely discussed for some reason. It's much harder to define, or, it's at least far less tangible than "violent games/movies".
If you want to get around the 140 character limit:
http://www.twitlonger.com/
But be mindful that the question is loaded. It already puts up the idea that violent games have negative effects. By answering it you are validating her point, unless you start off with you haven't provided proof that games have a negative impact on society. Or something to that effect.
http://www.twitlonger.com/
But be mindful that the question is loaded. It already puts up the idea that violent games have negative effects. By answering it you are validating her point, unless you start off with you haven't provided proof that games have a negative impact on society. Or something to that effect.
Ok. Care about that then. Care about SOMEthing. You're all just in a room yelling with each other right now. This is what makes it so easy to even make tweets like that and be heard. Thousands of people read that and nodded their heads and said "yup... go get em Katie". 100 of you sat here and just yelled together.
That's the ticket!
People are being too harsh on Katie.
It's probably that she (and her cohorts) don't play these types of games and want to present 'the other side'. So, she used twitter for people to spitball a bunch of ideas/talking points that she can then broadcast to other people. Giving people a platform to speak that normally wouldn't have a chance.
No need to get snarky about it.
It's probably that she (and her cohorts) don't play these types of games and want to present 'the other side'. So, she used twitter for people to spitball a bunch of ideas/talking points that she can then broadcast to other people. Giving people a platform to speak that normally wouldn't have a chance.
No need to get snarky about it.
I'm not so sure that this is the case, here. She makes a distinction and specifically refers to "violent v games" in her tweet. Assuming that this is the position of the layperson or casual - in 2013, when literally everyone and their mother plays video games - is just as bad as a reality wherein the larger society writes off the entirety of the medium as a violent, corrupting waste of time. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to accuse you or anyone in particular of this disconnect. Nevertheless, it would benefit the medium if both the avg hardcore and casual players were sober enough to always think of "videogames" in terms of their now vast range of genres and platforms.