Support NeoGAF

[Eric P]

Dick Cavett; There’s so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the streets?

that's a good question

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Right, but there's a disconnect here. I mean, Life is Beautiful is a movie full of death and despair, but the message is pro-life and anti-violence. The "message" and "the images and sounds" are two different things, and it's more than possible to use horrible images and violence to tell you to *not* do these things.

And yes, plenty of games do encourage violence, and that's horrible. Call of Duty 4 makes a war crime look like an awesomely badass Holywood scene. Manhunt rewards your patience with more gruesome and horrible murders.

But other games that use violence don't necessarily imply that people *should* use violence. DEFCON is about millions of people dying, but the entire game is anti-nuclear war, for instance.

Exactly. The message that is sent across and the moderation and context the violence is used in is a large factor. I'm not arguing that at all.

 

[mugwhump]

It was in response to "images on a flat screen constitute as an environment?". Yes they do.

Hitler was an example. Hillary Clinton is an example. Obama. Martin Luther King Jr. ANYONE that uses a medium to send a message is an example.

Radio, television, internet, music, and videogames are all environmental influences.

All I'm saying is that Hitler was a baaaaad example.

 

[speculawyer]

Ya know what makes people violent? Anger. Ya know what makes people angry? Stupid shit like these exaggerated reports.

 

[clo1_2000]

Next time, just post a cat gif and go "lololololll". It'll make a more compelling argument that that p.o.s. post.

And, okay, screw the Hitler comment.

I'm just saying that what you SEE and HEAR influences behavior. Unless you're some unusual person who can completely block out anything from changing your behavior. If you are like that, congratulations. But guess what? Most people aren't. In fact, most people are stupid canvasses waiting to be taken advantage of.

I grew up listening to gangsta rap music during my formative years, yet I knew well enough that I shouldn't go out and try to bust a cap in someone's ass. Why? Because my parents and society conditioned me that shooting people was not ok, that it was against the law and immoral behavior.

I don't think anyone is arguing that violent video games can be an influencer Funky. I think the stance that people are taking is that just because someone plays violent video games doesn't mean they will be violent in real life. I think that many people are concerned that if we start curbing content in video games it will lead to censorship in other areas of our lives.

I personally feel that it is up to the parents of children to ensure they are viewing content appropriate to their age; not the government's. I'm 30 years old and if I want to blow away homeless people in GTA and then go to work the next day and head up a cross-functional meeting on implementing a new architectural standard, why should the government have any say in that?

I personally won't let my son play M Rated games and since I am an avid video game player I usually inform other parents on things they may not want their kids to play. What needs to happen is parents need to be made more aware of what their children are doing so that they can be the filter for their children's content. The ESRB is doing its part in trying to promote the Ratings; now parents have to actually give a shit, step up and parent.

 

[DDayton]

to accept that these implications are true is to agree with the insinuation that humans are empty vessels ready to be influenced by any and everything around them.

It is possible for folks to be influenced by what they perceive around them, right? Neither of us would agree that violent imagery forces folks to do anything in particular, but would you agree that there is some influence of some sort by perception of (and/or the creation of) violent imagery?

i agree that games can be a powerful media in terms of influence. the reason we're seeing this comparison is because we're in a generational transition. children/adults of future generations will probably have different attitudes once games are the norm.

interesting how games started out as a subculture to almost a counterculture on the brink of mainstream acceptance

I disagree with the "generational divide" theory for three reasons:

1) Video game started off as a generally "main stream" thing. The decline to a sub/counter/whatever-cultural thing didn't happen until later, and I think we're getting back to being "main stream" again. Games were and are the norm.

2) These "attacks" are against violent video games, not video games as a whole. If it were a "generational" bias against games, we'd see general distrust of ALL video games. The success of the Wii across the board seems to provide at least some support for the idea that it's the content of the games (not games overall) that bothers people.

We've had the same complaints and uproar over violent games since the beginning of video games. Deathrace 2000, Shark Attack, Chiller, Mortal Kombat... this isn't a case of games as a whole being attacked, it's violent games being attacked.

3) A good chunk of the "ruling body" now consists of folks who grew up playing (or being exposed) to video games. 18-30 year old folks grew up surrounded by video games, and 30-35 year olds had decent exposure to them throughout most of their lives. This isn't a matter of "those mean old folks" hating video games... a good chunk of the "old folks" are from the video game generation.

 

[Campster]

3) A good chunk of the "ruling body" now consists of folks who grew up playing (or being exposed) to video games. 18-30 year old folks grew up surrounded by video games, and 30-35 year olds had decent exposure to them throughout most of their lives. This isn't a matter of "those mean old folks" hating video games... a good chunk of the "old folks" are from the video game generation.

This is where I'd disagree with you. 30-35 isn't old - as quoted in the report, 33 is the average gamer's age. But the average age of someone in Congress ( and, I'd wager, the average age of a Psychology professor who is doing research on violence in the media ) probably skews much higher.

I would also say that this article, not this research, is attacking videogames unfairly. Again, the study was violent media (or at its most specific, violent videogames AND television), so why are games being singled out?

 

[DDayton]

This is where I'd disagree with you. 30-35 isn't old - as quoted in the report, 33 is the average gamer's age. But the average age of someone in Congress ( and, I'd wager, the average age of a Psychology professor who is doing research on violence in the media ) probably skews much higher.

30-35 is still in the "adult" catagory, and of the same age range as those who can enter Congress, contribute to political parties, and the like. There are still older folks out there, yes, but I don't think this can be easily excused as a "generational divide".

I would also say that this article, not this research, is attacking videogames unfairly. Again, the study was violent media (or at its most specific, violent videogames AND television), so why are games being singled out?

Yeah, the article seems to weigh heavily against games when both are part of the study.

All I was saying is that I think blaming all of this on a "generational divide" seems to be ignoring the fact that is really can't be limited to that, nor compared to the divides that may have existed at other times. What could help, though, is if we had one of those polls about game violence and had it broken down by ages.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Amazing how the studies that somehow desperately and tenuously find any kind of link between violence and video games get so much airtime but the overwhelming majority of studies that don't find it are never brought up. HMMMM.

Ah, the media. How fucking agenda-filled is you.

 

[madara]

This is why we need have 40 percent of market doing 2D games. The worst that should happen is us gamers butt bopping folks as we walk down the street or mall. :lol

 

[Bildi]

Dammit, invest money in a worthwhile study like: Does viewing lots of porn growing up = having lots of sex when you've grown up?

In my experience, it doesn't work like that. And I want to know why.

 

[Barry Lightning]

hey america: JUST BAN GUNS ALREADY

get the fuck over it.

 

[SwitchBladeKneegrow]

Violent games keep me from having to restort to real violence. I'm a pretty angry guy, and videogames are my means of "venting". I haven't even had a scuffle in 6 years now, it all started with SOFIIH and I've been killing people online ever since!

Take away my outlet, and bad things could happen!

 

[plank]

Reader Wolfrider read our article on video games and violence in adults, and something about it just didn’t seem right. He took it upon himself to email Brad Bushman, one of the researchers involved with the project. Mr. Bushman is credited with a few statements in the Fox Business article, but his email response below tells a different story. It appears that the Fox Business article mixes and matches a few statements that lead to false statements. I have included the email conversations in full below.

Hello, The University of Michigan’s recent longitudinal study about the effects of violent video games and movies and their relationship to real life violence has piqued my curiosity. I first read about the findings in the following Fox News article:

Article link

In it, the article states that research began in the 1960s with third graders who were questioned and then tracked in order to discover whether their exposure to violent entertainment had effects on their propensity toward real life violence. The article states that the study says that violent video games were linked to real life violence. What concerns me about this article, and this is why I am asking for clarification, is that if the study measured exposure to violent media from the ages of 6-9 and the research started in the 60s, and the children who were questioned were in grade three at the time, then how could the study have generated any data in regards to exposure to violent entertainment? The age the study was measuring according to the article would have them playing games at the latest in 1972. If that is indeed the case, then the only games they would have been exposed to would have been Computer Space (1971) and Pong (1972). Is Fox News misunderstanding the contents of the study or communicating them incorrectly? Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Wolfrider

Mr. Bushman’s response…

No, Huesmann measured violent TV exposure not violent video game exposure.

Wolfrider’s reply…

Thank you for responding so quickly. So, just to clarify. The conclusion that 20 year olds who have been exposed to violent media from the ages of 6 - 9 that the Fox News article cites would have been part of Huesmann’s study, and would not have included video games as one of the studied variables?

Bushman’s response:

Correct.

You can also find a more detailed report here, which better shows Mr. Bushmann’s findings.

from go nintendo.com

 

[twilitesparklemotion]

I been known to walk the streets in power armour now and again, I admit...

I like to hit crabs with my crowbar.

 

[Campster]

Then that sort of makes the whole article suspect, doesn't it? A report on the effect of violent television being twisted to be about videogames when the study simply doesn't concern itself with them is outright insulting.

 

[m00]

People have been hitting each other over the head with blunt, sharp and generally unpleasant objects since the dawn of mankind. Has it got that much worse the last 10 years? To be perfectly honest, I'm having way too much fun playing my videogames to be bothered to go outside and beat somebody over the head with anything.

Haven't you been paying attention? Everything is worse now than it was back in the day.

hey america: JUST BAN GUNS ALREADY

get the fuck over it.

True story: I grew up on Looney Tunes cartoons, but have never dropped an anvil on anyone. Proof positive that anvil control is working.

 

[GallonOMilk]

It's been said to death before, but it's worth repeating.

If games make you violent, that's the least of your problems.

Edit:
lol @ the rating of the article. One star.

 

[dejay]

Correlation != Causation.
That is all.

Amen. From the statistics you could also speculate that people with violent tendencies are drawn to violent media - hence the correlation.

 

[VeritasVierge]

I wonder what video games The Romans and everybody before and after them before the 20th century played to make them so violent.

 

[NotWii]

Videogames started WWII

 

[grandjedi6]

Sorry Fox but the American Psychological Association still disagrees

 

[NotWii]

I wonder what video games The Romans and everybody before and after them before the 20th century played to make them so violent.

Probably Bible Adventures for the NES, damn that game was bad.

 

[Kasumi1970]

I can see it now, Video games are the next comic book. In the 50's comic books were an escape goat for the society's problems. the same thing is happeing to video games.

 

[Talka]

I know it's easy to get defensive about video games, but there's something to be said for the research linking aggression and violent media. I haven't watched the Fox News clip--I bet it's as loaded as all news segments on research. But coming from somebody who worked in a developmental lab for three years in college, at least consider these few points:

Aggression has been linked to violent media. In six or seven longitudinal studies, all spanning between ten and twenty years, children who watched television shows with more aggressive acts per hour self-reported more acts of violence and aggression as an adult. The correlational connection is really strong, significant, clear, reliable, etc.

The problems with studying violent media and aggression is that, yes, it's impossible to measure the causative effect longitudinally, because, yes, there is going to be a major self-selection bias. Also, video games are too new to even have longitudinal correlational data. But c'mon, if the association is reliably there for violent movies and violent TV shows, we all know it'll show up for violent video games.

Also, don't be quick to dismiss the research being done just because there is no longitudinal causative link between violent media and aggression. There is causal evidence that watching violent media raises aggression in youths in the short-term. All you have to do is find some children who haven't watched violent media (yes, they exist), set a control group, and show the other half the typical violent TV shows, video games, or movies for a few months. Then you measure aggressive acts per hour (hitting, punching, kicking peers) by observation and parental report. The rate of aggressive acts per hour jumps from like ~2.5 to ~5.5, and goes from significantly below the norm to significantly above it. This has been found multiple times, reliably. Whoever said the APA doesn't think violent media causes aggression is wrong.

Yes, there's a lot of bullshit in the media about violent video games teaching your children to kill. But there's also a lot of reputable research that violent media really does cause aggression in youths and might cause higher rates of violence up to 15 years later. Playing Goldeneye as a youth didn't turn you into a highly trained killer, but it very well might have raised your aggression levels above the norm.

Is that enough evidence to warrant the violent video game bitchfest that goes on in the media and in politics? Maybe, maybe not. But don't just dismiss violent media's effects on aggression out of hand. It exists.