-
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
flyinpiranha
Member
But isn't that point of a lot of past times? To kind of go to the extreme of a particular situation? God of War is essentially just visualizing stories and religious views of the past that have already been in human circulation for 1000's of years.
It goes back to my first post of 'shock value' or 'over the top-ness'. The point is, that there isn't a point. It's there to make you go "WOAH! HOLY SHIT! THAT WAS COOL!" ... but, even defining 'what is cool' is something that is going to change from person to person. My fiance didn't enjoy watching God of War. But she enjoys romance novels. I don't enjoy them but I understand that people who enjoy the 'love stories' want a story with over-the-top crazy love twists and hot action 'all up in there'. It's the 'extreme' that makes these situations enjoyable for the people that enjoy that type of thing.
And before you ask, no. Enjoying horror movies or violent games doesn't mean you want to kill people, as much as my girl reading about affairs doesn't make her a person who wants to cheat.
In either case you are actively seeking out the visual stimulation though. I don't think there is all that much difference than watching Band of Brothers or playing COD.
Pyramid head
Banned
Do you honestly think Katie Couric cares about whatever it is that "passionate gamers" think is "the positive side" to violent games?
It's a loaded question designed to provoke responses like: 'its fun to shoot peoples in games instead of IRL' in the hope that she gets enough silly answers to her silly question that it helps her push her actual agenda.
SolidSnakex
Member
Why not respond to the rest of my post? What exactly gives you the impression that she's going to take any of these seriously when she just decided to base an entire show around one side of the argument? Would her next show be about presenting games in an entirely positive light? Like I said, the message that she sent with that episode was very telling. If she were interested in any kind of debate then she or her staff would've gone around looking for opinions from the other side.
Couldn't agree more. You see it most clearly in sexism and violence threads.
I don't like this refusal to play ball and give a reasoned response just because it only seems like there is no good answer to her question. There's still enough room, even in 140 chars, for a pithy response that can elevate the medium, at least in her eyes. Hopefully this isn't too harsh, but kicking the dirt and walking away saying "That's not fair!" won't do the medium any favors. She is asking for feedback, so if you have an argument, make it, no matter how dirty the game she's playing.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
First of all, I'm not yelling.
Second, do you honestly think if "100" of us sent a well-crafted response to her tweet, she'll get on her show the next day and say the results are in and it looks like violent video games are indeed beneficial to society? 1,000? It's a fluff "news" piece designed to kill 15 minutes of air time until they move onto the next piece. It's programming. Nothing more. And not worth responding to. Though it can make for interesting discussion on a board like this.
This is a story that pops up a few times a year and goes away ever since Mortal Kombat. It's not going to change.
Evidence is equivocal.
However, there is lots of evidence to show regularly heightened levels of aggression leads to an increase in aggression in some people, but I don't they've looked at that wrt videogames.
I find the extreme of the male power fantasy-type "no apologies" game to be intensely juvenile and exclusionary (I'm transgender so I have bias in this regard). Some games (MGS series, Deus Ex, etc.) are more self-aware in how they address the violence and give you an option to opt-out. Some games punish you for being a passive participant in the violence (Nier).
Why do you assume that because we have differing feelings on the issue that I'm going to accuse you of enjoying actual violence? Everyone has their tastes. We just have...somewhat disparate tastes.
Shai-Tan
Banned
you would think that would be a difference in kind but it rests on tendentious imitative theory that is unproven
I've tracked back and stated it depends on who's delivering the message. The violence of a Call of Duty game is much different than the violence depicted in say a Suda51 game.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Brilliant. Someone has to tweet that back.
flyinpiranha
Member
While I can somewhat agree with this sentiment, I have absolutely zero faith in today's media. If this was a serious conversation she wants to have then there would be studies, behavioral professionals, and reached out to the leaders of the industry that create these games.
Asking on Twitter where you will receive the canned responses she's hoping to see isn't where I would want to hold this conversation.
It also should be said I don't think anybody here finds themselves 'qualified' in even addressing this issue 'as a whole'. I can provide my opinion, I can tell you what I think, but I feel the question itself is baited and there isn't an effort there to really care. Much like bringing on a soft-spoken democrat on a republican radio show.
I just don't see it ending well 'asking the public' when the public shouldn't answer. This is something for the creators of the game.
Honestly, "what are the positive sides?" It generates billions of dollars in revenue and provides jobs. Oh, and I enjoy 'em.
I find the extreme of the male power fantasy-type "no apologies" game to be intensely juvenile and exclusionary (I'm transgender so I have bias in this regard). Some games (MGS series, Deus Ex, etc.) are more self-aware in how they address the violence and give you an option to opt-out. Some games punish you for being a passive participant in the violence (Nier).
Why do you assume that because we have differing feelings on the issue that I'm going to accuse you of enjoying actual violence? Everyone has their tastes. We just have...somewhat disparate tastes.
It's usually the first 'defense' every time I've seen this conversation, pre-emptive strike, sorry to assume.
Ol No Bones
Banned
If public sentiment is that games cause murder nanny government could step in. It's not that far fetched. There are already representatives talking about regulating the NFL because football causes brain damage. I'm not saying they ban it I'm saying it could be regulated out of existence.
I think a lot of people have a problem with the way she is asking a question for which gamers can provide a rebuttal.
She is basically saying "Tweet the positive side of violence"
Of course the answer to that is nothing. I think both the Kotaku piece as well as the PA Report piece are well thought out intelligent responses. The solution is education not fear mongering.
She is basically saying "Tweet the positive side of violence"
Of course the answer to that is nothing. I think both the Kotaku piece as well as the PA Report piece are well thought out intelligent responses. The solution is education not fear mongering.
Maybe I'm overly cynical, but it looks like she's baiting for someone to post something that's worded poorly and thus reflects poorly on this opinion as a whole.
A couple legitimate ones will be posed at the end of a horror segment and then one final third one, that makes us look crazy, will be the end of the piece to drive it home. That's generally the cookie cutter fear piece you see on tv these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender
So, do you identify as both male/female or the opposite of your actual gender? I don't really understand.
Oh c'mon at those studies. People get angry at people that annoy them. At issues that they don't agree with. Bad tv shows, good tv shows, good movies, bad movies, bad music, good music, etc.
This is all defeatist bullshit.
You think any debate has been settled like this? One side says something, then another responds and then the first person says "oh I was wrong never mind". No, of course not. BUT it does get the conversation going. A decent response to this article could change the mind of some of her followers or it could make them question Katie's stance. It could do many things. But sitting in this thread talking to each other is guaranteed to do exactly dick which is my point.
I don't know what your backgrounds are but I'm a black man, working as a fulltime graphic designer in New York City. If my parents parents said to themselves "what good would it do" then chances are I wouldn't even be sitting here talking to you right now.
And yea this story pops up a few times a year. But so did a lot of other stories filled with misunderstanding and misinformation and they were only silenced by people actually giving a shit and doing something about it.
I understand this is just another opportunity for GAF to cry about something in the media but you guys have to be getting tired of this by now.
SneakyStephan
Banned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiX9d_j1Xao&t=4m50s
That being said, the most violent games these days are ungames with barely a hint of gameplay in them so yeah, there is pretty much no point to violence ingames nowaday, it's no longer to enable gameplay it's just gratuitous violence for the sake of violence to make trailers that make 11 year olds want to preorder.
That being said, the most violent games these days are ungames with barely a hint of gameplay in them so yeah, there is pretty much no point to violence ingames nowaday, it's no longer to enable gameplay it's just gratuitous violence for the sake of violence to make trailers that make 11 year olds want to preorder.
Schweinehund
Member
I shouldn't have to justify any reason to play violent games, I hope a news anchor would be against censorship...
My view is that violence enables game developers to make better stories by exploring more themes, violence in a story can lead to a wide spectrum of emotions.
My view is that violence enables game developers to make better stories by exploring more themes, violence in a story can lead to a wide spectrum of emotions.
Shai-Tan
Banned
you don't realize that the bushman and anderson school of research on this topic has received significant criticism. they have been attempting to prove that games cause not only aggressive behavior but actual violence for many years, and much of it is sloppy. they have been getting better recently but they started at a point of incompetence in basic methodoology and disingenuous one sided investigation
It's a little bit more complicated than that. Remember transgender is a -very- general term accounting for a lot of different things. I appreciate the interest but I hope you can understand this isn't exactly the kind of place where I really want to get into it.
Sylvrfonic
Member
Katie, what are the positives of showing violent news footage when good reporting would suffice?
KojiKnight
Member
#1: Because they are all forms of entertainment.
#2: You are not commiting violent actions, you're pressing a button and then watching a video of something happening. It's hardly more interactive than pressing "play" on a violent movie.
You are NOT performing the physical actions, they do NOT have the same effect on you because there is cognitive dissonance. "But but but, that one guy who went on a shooting rampage played FPS games!" and I bet he watched violent movies. There have been LOTS of murder cases where the murders were based on scenes from movies, but you hardly hear about that unless you live in the neighborhood where it happened.
If violent video games were the cause of violent actions, then as violent games have gotten more and more prevalent then so would violence crimes in the country... right?
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Some choice quotes on the "murder" line....
In 1990 (which we can all agree on is when video games were getting significantly mainstream and super violent games were almost always censored) US population was 250 million, 23,000 murders and 100,000 cases of violent rape.
In 2005 we entered the HD era... US population nearly 300 million, 17,000 murders and 94,000 violent rapes. The country went up in population by 20 percent, but murders and violent rapes went DOWN.
In 2011 (the last year listed) 311 million people in the US, 15,000 murders and 83,000 cases of violent rape. So, the country raise it's population by 3%, but murders and violent rapes were down over 10%.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying violent games LOWERED these rates, only that it's RIDICULOUS to say that violent games have caused MORE violence. The numbers just aren't there.
"But they might cause an unstable person to commit crimes!!!" So could having abusive parents... or from watching violent movies... or by reading books... You can't censor our first amendment rights on "but it could blank!" You want a REAL solution to people who are mentally unstable? Improve the mental health facilities in the country... but no no no... that would be hard work when we could be scape goating...
Well unlike you there are gamers like myself who elevate gaming beyond movies because we have agency.
Catalix
And on the sixth day the LORD David Bowie created man and woman in His image. And he saw that it was good. On the seventh day the LORD created videogames so that He might take the bloody day off for once.
I actually caught the entire episode when it aired a couple days ago. A whole hour of ignorant, one-sided fear mongering. Don't know why I assumed Couric was a smarter reporter than this.
I'm guessing the tweet in the OP is in response to some overwhelming backlash she got from the gaming community. That episode really was embarrassing.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
But we're not fighting for the freedom to play these games. We can. There's no revolution to fight. If someone wants to think they routinely cause violence even with the available data already out there, there's not much I can do to convince them otherwise.
Comparing this to the fight for racial equality is absurd.
KojiKnight
Member
That study about violent game players being more aggressive is interesting, but it lacks a larger view. We don't live in a vacuum. A better study would have been comparing people who played violent games 3 times a week to people who listen to music albums 3 times a week and movies 3 times a week.
They also lacked a control group from what I read (people who didn't play ANY games) so the comparison is also not the best. People playing non-violent games may be receiving stress relief from their days that a person who doesn't play any games may not.
They also lacked a control group from what I read (people who didn't play ANY games) so the comparison is also not the best. People playing non-violent games may be receiving stress relief from their days that a person who doesn't play any games may not.
do you have some links?
I wouldn't consider the value of a game's violence to be dependent on developer intent. How engrossing it is might be a symptom, of course, but I'm operating on the thought that the value/worthiness/holiness/artfulness (lol) of a game's violence is tied directly to my enjoyment of it and how well it fits with all other elements of a game.
anexanhume
Member
Yup. Tell me, what can be great about the violent Shawshank Redemption? Or the latent pedophilia in The Professional?
Man this always happens.
Take the symbolic statement and boil it down to the most literal interpretation and go from there. The bigger (and rather obvious) point was that saying "what good would it do" never got anything done. You can either sit around and do nothing or do something about it. The battle itself doesn't matter. I wasn't saying this was as big or important as the civil right movement. Jesus Christ.
Whatever. Keep crying in this thread. Just keep in mind that if statements like these and studies that support it gain a lot of traction then yes, you COULD be fighting for your right to play these games one day.
I was just responding to the passion in this thread. People are saying "you can't answer this question in 140 characters!@!!!" which tells me that they could answer it in a couple paragraphs if they wanted to. I was under the impression that people wanted to have the conversation and couldn't (for some reason).
But if the purposes of this thread is to just cry then please carry on.
DragonSworne
Banned
First amendment right. Censorship is bad
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
"Please answer my loaded question using only 140 characters so I can distort it to further cement my pre-established viewpoint, lol".
How about... no, fuck you.
How about... no, fuck you.
Haha, that's like... my two favourite movies ever. :O
KojiKnight
Member
Yeah... I did just that and got summarily ignored... Probably because I also pointed to data that backed up what I was saying.
People don't want to discuss this issue, they want to have a moral pissing match.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
So...am I being apathetic or crying?
DeaconKnowledge
Member
I don't have an issue with people saying that Twitter is the wrong medium to defend gaming.
My issue is with those that immediately resort to denigrating a person rather than trying to be constructive. Gamers have a long standing reputation for being basement dwelling manchildren and sniping at anybody and everybody who may criticize the pastime just reinforces that.
It's ironic, gamers are desperate for gaming to be taken seriously yet can't handle any attempt at a serious conversation about its flaws.
since the playstation came out,
drug related offenses by juveniles has gone up 77%
does that mean that video games make kids more likely to do drugs?
voilent crime rate by juveniles has gone down in the same timeframe by ~60%
coincidence? probably
without any knowledge about the subject,
you could say that the increased drug rate of juveniles makes them less likely to commit violent crimes.
drug related offenses by juveniles has gone up 77%
does that mean that video games make kids more likely to do drugs?
voilent crime rate by juveniles has gone down in the same timeframe by ~60%
coincidence? probably
without any knowledge about the subject,
you could say that the increased drug rate of juveniles makes them less likely to commit violent crimes.
Why would I respond to an irrelevant question? The conversation she shifted to is removed from the one people are angry about and people have told her as much.
I've spent my entire time in this thread addressing everyone. That was obviously a general statement for the thread. The second part of my post even makes that clear.
But you're right. You're being apathetic and I guess you don't really care either way which is fine. I'm addressing those that, apparently, do.
KojiKnight
Member
Indeed, correlation is not causation... But there is a subset of people in the violent video game debate that are convinced that violent games are turning people into killers... yet the murder rate has consistently been lowest it's ever been since the 1970's... when we had 33% less people in the country
(for those that don't get math, that means when there was 100 MILLION less people in the US, there were consistenly MORE murders. Not just per capita, but TOTAL)