Dear Rockstar: Stop being assholes. Signed, Jess.

[Scoots]

You're missing my point, Ed. I'm not saying violence and violent imagery doesn't exist, I'm just saying you don't need to be inundated by it unless you allow yourself to be. If you want to enjoy that kind of thing, then you will. If you don't, then you just don't go see Scream 7 or Terminator 3 or buy the newest 50 Cent album. Either way, it doesn't make you any better or worse than anyone else, it just shows you have a different sense of what is entertainment.

I'm not missing your point.

Your statement was logically inconsistent. To add more to the insult, you just committed two more errors "refuting" my point, and I don't think you're aware of how naive you sound as a result:

a.) Inundation (one N at the beginning) is not a state of "enjoying" something nor is it necessarily related, as you seem to imply. Being "inundated" is a state you cannot control: its use in reference to heavy rainfalls that wash out bridges or flood villages is a good example of its correct usage.

By the same token, then:

b.) There is no link between enjoying something (or not) and being able to escape advertisement for it (which by itself is becoming more nearly impossible these days). This feeds right back into part a.) as well, of course.

I find it hard to believe that you are completely immune to being inundated with advertisement. Going to some of my favorite websites -- GameSpy, Forumplanet, and news sites -- you simply cannot ignore the amount of advertisement that's around anymore. I don't watch television or movies much at all myself (maybe 3 movies a year?) yet I find it that these ads work their way into my field of vision anyways.

Why is it important that you don't see them, either? The person missing the point would be yourself. Lots of kids today would consider a game like Super Mario 64, for example, to be lots of fun, but consider how much press time these games get versus stigma ("kiddie games"). As a result violent games sell more, even to kids who could be having more fun (not to mention being less frustrated) in other games. Unfortunately, it seems that non-FPS online games seem to either be too expensive (MMOGs) or underpublicized (not to mention underbudgeted, i.e. GunBound).

I don't particularly mind the fact that I can enjoy a game of Counter-Strike (or not, as it sometimes works out) and it would seem to me that the game (and others like it) help condition one's reflexes and increase spatial awareness. That said, there's less room for taking morally repugnant actions than in a title like GTA Vice City, and I don't feel that being able to "try out" those actions has the calming or teaching effect that some people seem to believe it does.

No, you're completely missing my point, and taking a snotty attitude while doing it. Too bad I didn't fuck up some html in that post so you could have further "humbled" me. Don't presume for a second that I don't know the correct meaning of the word "inundate," in fact you use it in the exact same sense I did when you say: "
I find it hard to believe that you are completely immune to being inundated with advertisement.." You think I sound naive for saying that you can avoid being overwhelmed by violent advertising? Let me go over my credentials again: I rarely watch TV (probably Nick at Nite if I do), see maybe 2 new movies a year, don't listen to new music, don't listen to the radio, and don't visit sites like GameSpy that feature tons of ads (and run a pop-up blocker). Where exactly am I supposed to be bombarded with these "offensive" ads? My point to Aswald was that people who claim to be unable to escape from violent advertising etc are in that situation by their own choice. Anyone who says otherwise is making excuses. This isn't aimed just at you, Ed. Someone said you have to be a hermit to avoid all the advertising; so what? What are you missing out on? More violence and amoral behavior? If you think that restricts your entertainment choices too much then at least admit to yourself that you enjoy the violence, gore, sexuality, and other "antisocial" behavior everyone in this thread has been decrying.

[Ed Oscuro]

Don't presume for a second that I don't know the correct meaning of the word "inundate," in fact you use it in the exact same sense I did when you say: "
I find it hard to believe that you are completely immune to being inundated with advertisement.."

Wow, you're good!! Should I give you a cookie for noticing that?

The important difference here is that I understand being "inundated" is NOT something one can voluntarily avoid, and outside of your post I've never seen the word used to describe an event that was voluntarily suffered.

You think I sound naive for saying that you can avoid being overwhelmed by violent advertising? Let me go over my credentials again: I rarely watch TV (probably Nick at Nite if I do), see maybe 2 new movies a year, don't listen to new music, don't listen to the radio, and don't visit sites like GameSpy that feature tons of ads (and run a pop-up blocker). Where exactly am I supposed to be bombarded with these "offensive" ads? My point to Aswald was that people who claim to be unable to escape from violent advertising etc are in that situation by their own choice. Anyone who says otherwise is making excuses. This isn't aimed just at you, Ed. Someone said you have to be a hermit to avoid all the advertising; so what?[/quote]

Most people on the Internet haven't even heard of a pop-up blocker, and what do you say to them? I could easily imagine a grandma doing a search for some game to buy her grandchildren and having to suffer though these pop-ups. Not only is that true, but as I've said games that get advertised make money. The shameful amount of violence is as much to gain infamy and cause controversy as it is to satisfy some teenager's bloodlust; of that I have little doubt.


What are you missing out on? More violence and amoral behavior? If you think that restricts your entertainment choices too much then at least admit to yourself that you enjoy the violence, gore, sexuality, and other "antisocial" behavior everyone in this thread has been decrying.

No, I don't think it restricts my choices too much. I've been quite happy putting a number of games on my personal blacklist and I'm happy in the knowledge that there will be other games I can enjoy in the meantime.

Oh, and here's more logical errors! Let's look at that last statement of yours.

According to you,

a.) If I believe the presence of immoral games restricts my choice of entertainment (not true--what I'm saying is that these games steal money from better games: Postal 2 would be a case in point) then

b.) I therefore must remedy the situation, even if I must abandon my convictions and sense of taste.

c.) I will therefore see the errors of my ways and not only support them as completely moral (games which I thought I said I didn't enjoy?) but I will "enjoy" them.

After all, you said so!

I hope it's not necessary for me to go on like this any longer.

[Scoots]

No, you can stop spouting off like know-it-all douchebag any time you'd like!

If you believe that the presence of immoral games restricts your choice of entertainment, you either avoid them and be happy that you stuck to your convictions, or you play them anyway and admit you're a hypocrite. That's my final thought in this thread, no matter how many more times you choose to misunderstand me.

[Chris++]

Zmweasel, the crux of GTA3 is driving. To me, it's an overblown driving game. When you spew phrases like "the brilliance of the game play," after I'm done laughing I wonder if you don't work for Rockstar's PR firm or something.

I know, I know -- saying that it discredits the rest of my article is an easy way to avoid touching upon the very subject it deals with, which is wondering where the widespread demand for this sick shit comes from. You're not alone in that respect; if more people wondered about it, they wouldn't be the docile, ignorant, imbecilic, good little consumers that they're trained to be.

[odysseyzine]

Personally, I'm more frustrated that this is Rockstar's way of being an innovative developer of adult-themed games. Please. I'm an adult who wants a little more credit than that.

[zmweasel]

N/A

[Ed Oscuro]

If you believe that the presence of immoral games restricts your choice of entertainment, you either avoid them and be happy that you stuck to your convictions, or you play them anyway and admit you're a hypocrite.

Some option! What if people actually feel this is an important issue?

I could protest, I could even support censorship (I don't, but I'll be damned if somebody like yourself tells me what to do). There are many options which your black-and-white fallacy doesn't even consider, and I resent your telling me that I have to fall directly into one of your two supposed "categories."

What it comes down to is you like telling people what to do, even though you have no business doing so.

I'm sorry if you can't understand why it's important that you don't use logically false arguments, I really do. It's important for the same reason that letting people in this country have their own religion or even worship Hitler is important. It's all about democratic, free debate, and I'm not interested in stifling you (though you are obviously looking to quiet your own opposition). I'm just interested in seeing that your stupidity doesn't gain a following.

[zmweasel]

N/A

[Ed Oscuro]

Two proofs of Godwin's Law. Who'll make it three?

Yes, hopefully somebody'll take notice already. Note that I haven't been arguing against GTA:VC much at all. All I'm interested in right now is for certain people to step back and realize how foolish they are in telling everybody else what to think.

[Arcade Antics]

If the only portion of GTA3/VC that appealed to the masses was the "sick shit" -- and there has been equally sick shit in many other games, but you're not a gamer, so you wouldn't be aware of gaming history -- then State of Emergency would have been an equally huge seller. But it wasn't a hit; in fact, it was widely panned, because once the violent aspects lost their novelty, you had naught but a repetitive beat-'em-up.

Exactly.


Yes, hopefully somebody'll take notice already. Note that I haven't been arguing against GTA:VC much at all. All I'm interested in right now is for certain people to step back and realize how foolish they are in telling everybody else what to think.

I guess I missed where Scoots told anyone what to think. He merely said that people can buy a violent game or leave it on the shelf to rot.

[Chris++]

First of all, zm, I wasn't calling you in specific a "docile, ignorant, imbecilic, good little consumer," but rather making the point that many people are, and that's why the same elements, over and over, get repeated in any marketplace (games, music, etc. etc.). But looking back at my post, I can see why you got the impression that I was insulting you in particular, so you have my apologies on that one. I didn't communicate the point very well.

Second, I've probably been a gamer since you were in diapers. We won't get into that, because it was a tactic on your part to rile me up, which (sorry) never works. If you require any qualification on this, read the rest of our site instead of just that article.

I played GTA3 for a couple of hours, and got sick of the driving parts. I tried very hard to see past the "sick shit." But I admit that I don't like driving games anyway; they're dull to me. Our opinion merely differs on this, so perhaps the main thing I can't understand is your steadfast loyalty to the game. Are others not allowed to find something dull that you don't? How about if others find something tasteless, and submit that it's high time for the trend to go away? Even if you disagree, it doesn't mean that you're more of a "gamer" than they are.

After getting bored with the game, I watched my friend (whose game it actually was, and who got pissed at me for not saving it after I'd accomplished a few of the objectives) play for another hour or so, and found nothing further that interested me.

So if you think the game play's brilliant, then let's say for the sake of argument that you're right, and change the discussion a bit: Do you think that similar game design could be accomplished without such rampant violence against "innocent passers-by"? It's a serious question, not a loaded one.

[Ed Oscuro]

I guess I missed where Scoots told anyone what to think. He merely said that people can buy a violent game or leave it on the shelf to rot.

Oh really.


If you think that restricts your entertainment choices too much then at least admit to yourself that you enjoy the violence, etc. [emphasis mine]

Right there, you know. Thanks for your two cents.

[Arcade Antics]

I guess I missed where Scoots told anyone what to think. He merely said that people can buy a violent game or leave it on the shelf to rot.

Oh really.


If you think that restricts your entertainment choices too much then at least admit to yourself that you enjoy the violence, etc. [emphasis mine]

Right there, you know. Thanks for your two cents.

Any time! :) Shoot, I'll throw seven cents into the ring if you want, because I still don't see how that is telling YOU what to think. He said that people have a choice to check out violent stuff or to avoid it. And if they do check it out, it's their own choice.

[Ed Oscuro]

It's alright if Scoots is saying that, but I take words at face value. For me, there's only one way to look at that unless he says otherwise.

GRR FORUM WAR!! :angry: :angry: :angry:

:D

[Aswald]

Sure, I avoid that sort of garbage- but just walking down the street, someone drives by, blasting some song about rape and killing at about 170 decibles.

And if some punk is into that, and decides to get "in my face," guess what? I'm involved.

Back in the 1980s, there were those who said that you only got hurt by drugs if you used them or got involved. Guess what? The millions hurt by them, including kids ("mushrooms"), tried that. They got hurt because others were into it. Just because I don't buy such things doesn't mean I'm not involved; if it affects society, then guess what? I'm involved. I'm not God, or even that Aswald character; my word and actions do not determine human destiny.

So, yes- I AM inundated by it.

[zmweasel]

N/A

[Chris++]

Nope, no problem. I have no experience with that game and it actually sounds hilarious.

Points taken, then.

(I'm 31 as well, although I've been playing games since I was 6, not 4, and would only consider myself a "game journalist" since I was 20 -- I'm wondering if you'd find reassurances to your question about gaming knowledge in the rest of our articles: http://www.geocities.com/flynnwins/latest_articles.htm -- scroll down to see some less orthdox topics).

[zmweasel]

N/A

[Chris++]

Now you've got me curious. I'll have to pick that one up this weekend. :)

[SoulBlazer]

Now THIS is the kind of debate that this forum needs more off. :D

And my note got ignored, but that's allright. :)

[Chris++]

Godwin's Law:

As a Usenet/message board discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler grows.

[lendelin]

Godwin's Law:

As a Usenet/message board discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler grows.

Grand Theft Auto promotes fascism. I detest it.

[lendelin]

I don't know what the fuzz is all about. Of course games will cover more 'questionable" content; and for good reason. We are attracted by crime, violence, and fear. Why is American TV full of crime and court cases? Why do we watch horror movies? Why was a movie about Ed Geene produced? Why do we ride roller coasters? Why do novels, dramas, poems, paintings depict violence, crime, and horror? Why do people stop and watch an accident scene? Why do people watch a burning house?

Violence is part of our nature as highly developed mammals. We can channel it, we can limit it's irresponsible use, but we can't get rid of it.

I'd be only concerned if violent games would affect human behavior; but that's not the case. There is no empirical evidence that violent games have short or long term effects on human behavior, no matter what the Joe Liebermans or Craig Andersons try to tell you. Human beings from a certain age on aren't merely copycats. 5 year olds are, but 14 year olds already aren't.

GTA is a good game; and it's a good game because it delivers in two key departments like every first rate game from puzzlers to shooters - it has atmosphere and offers exploration. You can figure things out, and you're surprised when you discover something you can do which you overlooked for some time. The same was true when we discovered in SMB that you can hop onto bricks and there is actually a hidden warp zone.

Hitting someone with a stick over and over again in the same way is boring and keeps you interested for ten minutes. (State of Emergency) Hitting someone with different sticks, figuring out different ways, earning the sticks as rewards for gameplay, overcoming a variety of obstacles, and identify with the protagonist based on atmosphere and gameplay makes a great game.

We play games because we want to escape from reality and play what we can't experience in real life - good things, bad things, and the murky grey shades in between. Breaking the law in a game is attractive to people BECAUSE we won't do it in real life. I enjoyed Need For Speed 2, however, never got a speeding ticket and was never chased by the police.

Why should videogames be different from novels and dramas which introduce sometimes criminals in a sympathetic way? Every Shakespeare drama, every Sherlock Holmes novel, or every novel of Naturalism in the 19th century (which introduced among many other social phenomena "good" and "bad" prostitutes) could be banned; and to make sure, many of them caused controversy, and concerned citizens demanded to prohibit them ("sentiment" literature in France sparked by "Werther") and declared a decline of moral values.

[ozyr]

It amusing reading all this stuff about what is right/wrong. Frankly, if I don't think it is a good type of game, I don't buy it. Simple as that. And I have yet to buy anything from this company - period. They can take their 'Adult' game and stick them where the sun don't shine!
As for those folks that buy these type of games, well... :monkey:

[lendelin]

Reading through the posts again, i want to clarify

1) War and violence is glorified today?? ASWALD and CHRIS++, we live in an age in which war and violence is less glorified than ever before (at least in democracies). War isn't socially acceptable anymore for pure territorial gain, and this was the case for thousands of years. A ruler truly could achieve honor by war, by conquering other countries, and only after WW1 war as a glorified enterprise came after attack. Public violence, public lynching and executions were a public spectacle and sometimes high cultivated forms of entertainment. Things got better, not worse.

2) ASWALD and CHRIS++, don't assume that games have an ill effect on "young impressionable minds" and repeat the non-sensical copycat argument. People don't just do what they read, see, or play. Empirical research shows it. Human beings are way more complex, they don't live in an island situation without correction of parents, and more importantly, peer groups.

Sherlock Holmes novels faced protests and controversy. The reasoning: we breed murderers. Elaborate and intelligent murder plots by intelligent criminals are depicted in an entertaining way, therefore we breed murderers.

There was a movement to prohibit novels in France in the 19th century ("sentiment") which depicted two teenagers fallen in love, and the two or the young girl committed suicide. Reasoning for controversy: our young girls committ suicide.

It was non-sense back then, and it's still nonsense. Elvis Presley, Rock bands, the Rolling Stones, the first topless woman in a movie and on TV, every generation declares a terrible decline of ethics and moral values which has a bad influnece on "our children." Sound familiar?

I guarantee you (!) that the young impressinable minds of today will discuss in thirty year how dangerous the present is for their chioldren, and how innocent with firm limits the age was when a Grand Theft Auto 3 was produced. It's a psychological phenomenon. As a kid or teenager you accept things how they are, you cannot compare, it's the golden age for you. When we get older we are faced with changes, and we don't like change, it's uncomfortable....and we overlook that moral values ALWAYS change, tabboos are broken, and new core values develop since Adfam and Eve were driven out of paradise.

[Daniel Thomas]

Wow. What a great topic; easily the best to grace the DP boards in ages.

I would suggest that GTA 3 is a great videogame -- if for no other reason -- because of discussions like this. Of course, the idea of violent games is nothing new (remember Mortal Kombat a decade ago?), but this time is different. There are many game players who themselves are torn by the whole experience.

I think it's simplistic and limiting to think of GTA in terms of its violence. The true appeal lies in fulfilling in what many of the greatest games (Mario 64, Elite, etc) promised; it's the freedom to live in a virtual world. You have that freedom to interact and behave in any way you want. That's the real thrill, and that thrill mainly comes from testing the limits; you want to see what you can get away with.

When I was a kid, I loved Star Raiders on the Atari 800, largely because I could blow up the star bases. I play Daytona USA for the 20-car pileups. And how could I not torture those chickens in Zelda? What other purpose can they possibly serve?

People play GTA and start terrorizing civilians because they can. They want to see just how real this interactive world really is. And, of course, that's only one option. You don't have to chase hookers and gun down grandmothers. You could drive an ambulance around and pick up patients. You don't even have to drive; just get out and walk.

That's the great thing about the game: the freedom. Whatever turns you on, baby.

As for how all this make-believe violence is corrupting America's children, I dunno. Didn't this country invade another country recently? Wouldn't that real-life violence have a stronger impact on Junior's life, perhaps?

[Aswald]

Problem is, something has changed. Even in my day, people did not gun each other down in schools.

And humans are not as complex as you like to think. Time and time again, tyrants have manipulated entire populations, in the same exact manner. Marketers have this down to an exact science. So, the endless stream of violence- graphic, realistic violence- must have an effect.

[Ed Oscuro]

Reading through the posts again, i want to clarify

2) ASWALD and CHRIS++, don't assume that games have an ill effect on "young impressionable minds" and repeat the non-sensical copycat argument. People don't just do what they read, see, or play. Empirical research shows it.

People don't "just do what they read, see, or play." They have to internalize it first, and you, too, also have commited

"Oops I've fallen prey to a logical fallacy!"

Your fallacy is assuming that the only way young, impressionable people are affected by all the types of media they see, hear, and interact with every day is through a sort of mental osmosis.

No, people ARE more complex and you yourself have ignored that.

Say a kid goes online and discovers that he likes playin' CS (so far, a description which fits me). From the beginning his reactions to what he sees are shaped by his internal code of ethics and what he has normalized. Games, like movies, push ever so slightly (sometimes quite forcefully) up against the rules of our parents and what we ourselves consider to be good and right, but this pushing against the rules (if you will) does move the target further left.

We still haven't reached the most important part.

What is important is how kids react to the sense of community online, a community which now has products tailor-made for it like GTA:VC. The internet disseminates information quite well, and that applys equally to introducing kids to fetishes (what kid really heard of those before going online) as to old video game systems. I've even read that some people consider that "abnormal" behaviors that would normally be limited in scope have a chance to flourish out in the wild, as people feel they can take whatever antisocial behavior nagging at the back of their mind and take it further than they would have dared online. There's sites out there for violence, sites out there for sex, and there's sites out there where violence and sexuality meet in gory fashion.

Most of us turn away, but you cannot deny that this affects more people than it would have otherwise. This is much more dramatic than our talk about video games, but the same principle applies, even if this effect is less clear and noticeable.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't want to suggest that this is a complete theory, but just a specific instance where the reasoning I'm addressing isn't valid.

[lendelin]

Problem is, something has changed. Even in my day, people did not gun each other down in schools.



Yes they did. School shootings decreased over the last thirty years, not increased. There isn't only an increase of actual problems, but also an increase of the awareness of problems - which results in misperceptions. Shool shootings decreased overall, and they decreased drastically for minorities. It didn't make the headlines because it was perceived normal that poorer people kill each other, however, if something like this happens in a white suburb there is a loud outcry.

More importantly, what's the relationship between school shootings/youth crimes and videogames? Violence has lots of fathers, therfore it's simplistic to say that an increase or decrease of youth violence is related to content of videogames. It's nonsense if I would argue that the crime rates for teenagers decreased (which is true) in a time when videogames became popular (which is also true). Crime rates didn't go down despite or becasue of violent videogames; this assumes that there is only one cause for crime rates and violence.


And humans are not as complex as you like to think.

There are much more complex than we both like to think. :)



Time and time again, tyrants have manipulated entire populations, in the same exact manner. Marketers have this down to an exact science.

In particular human behavior in dictatorships is very complex. Human beeings aren't sheep who easily follow. Didn't someone post the unavoidable Hitler analogy? (the masses manipulated, going wild and became violent?) Hitler didn't campaign in 1932 with his war plans, he wouldn't have had a triumphant electoral success this way. More importantly, Hitler talked in public after he took over (from 1933 to 1936) about peace, and peace only. (Quote from the Nuremberg party gathering of 1935 when he adressed the party youth organization: "I want to make out of you a generation of peacemakers.") In 1936 in a famous speech in Berlin he mentioned the possibility of war, and was shocked when there was absolute silence and not the usual cheering. He canceled all his appointments for the day, summoned Goebbels, and gave the propaganda minister the task to systematically perpare the German people for war. From that time point on war was at least mentioned twice a week in official propaganda distributions, speeches, etc.

The vast majority of people isn't for war for the war sakes, and even dictators have to take into account the moods of the population. People are NOT easily manipulated, even with all the possibilities of a dictatorship. The vast majority of people simply keep their mouth shut becasue they are afraid, but that doesn't mean that they approve.



So, the endless stream of violence- graphic, realistic violence- must have an effect.

That's a big jump to conclusions, and I mean a BIG jump. :) Completely unsubsantiated and simplistic.

I think the simple reason why the violent game/violent behavior topic is alive and well is our disgust and non-explanation with ACTUAL violence in real life. We look for simple answers because we can't explain it. Psychology couldn't, biology couldn't, social science couldn't. Still today we don't know when people transform from non-violent bystanders to active participants of political violence, let it be revolutions or terrorism. (there isn't even a theory of terrorism in political science, btw, just descriptions)

The old and often heard arguments "letting off steam", and "Its just a GAME!!!" is still true and substantiated by empirical research. A 14 year old can distinguish between stealing a car in a game, and stealing a car in real life, which is at the root of this debate;the same is true for the underestimation phantasy of children and their ability to distinguish it from real life.

We wanna try things out in games we can't do in real life; and it's attractive because we won't do it in real life. From being a lonely hero fighting an armada of enemies and rescuing the princess to bad things like robbing a bank. Which effects this has is still murky and we just don't know for sure, but every empirical study which tried to show short term or long term effects of playing violent games on agression/violence utterly failed for sure. At least we can say that playing violent games doesn't cause violent behavior; and that's good news.

GTA isn't a top seller becausee of violent content, but becasue of great gameplay. A violent backdrop isn't enough to make an attarctive game. The backdrop of crime and participating in fantasy crime acts is attractive because violence as a remote, unrealistic, and suppressed possibility for ordinary citizens is attractive; and the latter can be explained by human nature, we ARE violent by nature, however, we have to channel it and avoid it's irresponsible use. One way of channeling it might be playing violent games.

Playing sports for teenagers is regarded as channelingg agression and implemented in youth programs. It might be that playing violent games has similar benefits; but we don't know for sure.

[Aswald]

Sorry, but people are not usually complex at all. For all of our so-called civilization, we still react to things as we did in caveman days.

Look at the Iraq war. A logical, sophisticated race might have asked why a beaten-down country was to be attacked, even though no evidence linking it to the September 11th attack really existed. A rational government would have been rquired to supply proof.

But what happened? The same old drum beating, the same old things that have been done for millenia, except over television. It worked.

What programs are on the air, what games sell? The ones that appeal to our basest instincts: sex, violence, etc. Is it any coincidence that GTA emphasizes those themes? Find a hooker, then kill her.

This is what makes the constant flow of such pop culture so deadly. It's like throwing napalm on a fire; you'll make it much worse. Human nature tends toward the ugly aspects, and glorifying such things, constantly, will surely bring it out. Especially if there's no "opposing message." It's no coincidence that the school violence of the 1990s happened in a grim, ugly decade in which darkness and a mindless violence and smut was glorified everywhere. I spoke of a barrier, or filter earlier. This was removed. In the 1980s, for example, pop culture usually had it: He-Man, Thundercats, The A-Team...it's hard to explain, but you know it when you see it. Videogames were sufficiently abstract to have it (if largely because of technological limits). In the world of pop culture, there were many refuges. There was the crime wave, but this was fueled by another human aspect: greed. And the rest of us fought it- except for those idiots who actually tried to glorify those lowlifes, but we as a whole shunned them.

But where does it go from here? If GTA is o.k. because of what you said, why not a game in which child molestation is the glorified goal? Or one in which you achieve the maximum nubers of rapes in a given time limit? After all, it's "only a game," right?

Phooey. Back to Bejeweled, and Sky Jaguar, when it becomes available.

[Ed Oscuro]

Look at the Iraq war. A logical, sophisticated race might have asked why a beaten-down country was to be attacked, even though no evidence linking it to the September 11th attack really existed. A rational government would have been rquired to supply proof.

Not to sound ornery, but you have to remember that the primitive side applies to Iraq as well. We aren't the only country that owes it to our people to be fair. It's a good thing we went in just to get rid of Saddam Hussein--the bad things are that there were lies, cover-ups, our objective wasn't correctly stated, a failure to plan out what happened after the war ended, and finally a decent Brit named David Kelly died from a slit wrist.

[Aswald]

Whoa, there...I was just illustrating how we aren't really so complex after all. And I said humans, not Americans.

And Saudi Arabia is a religious dictatorship that funds terrorists. But nobody asks about that, because we aren't that complex. We did what we were told to do and believe.

That's the problem. If we don't react rationally as adults, to outside stimuli, why do we expect kids to do so?

[Sothy]

That's the problem (certainly over here anyway). The ratings on games aren't enforced well enough so kids will get their hands on them anyway. Rockstar can keep making this kind of game if they like (though personally, I got bored of GTA pretty quickly), but parents need to take some responsibility for the games their kids play.


I dig it. I worked at a game store if you sell a kid a questionable game his parents will come preaching th bible and screaming at you.

If you make a kid get his parents int he store if he wants to buy it then they are all pissed you are wasting their time instead of just handing over little Johnnys copy of "Blood whore brigade EX directors cut alpha"

The funny thing is that some parents have no problem with mortal kombat but wont allow their kids to play Harry Potter because its Devil Worship.

One child was forbidden to purchase a Import Dragon ball z game because of the Japanes writing "you aint buying no dirty chink game with all that foreign language crap all over it while America is at WAR with them Afghanistan Asian people!" I swear. to god.

My point is parents... 90% of them "im sure you good people are allright" are god damned morons.

Plus why do 9 year old kids walk around with 30 ..40.. 50 dollars in their pockets thats asking for trouble.

PARENTS RESPONSIBILITY. NOT ROCKSTAR.

ROCKSTAR NO BABYSIT.

**ogles robot**

[Aswald]

No, Rockstar isn't a babysitter; but they surely know that there are a lot of idiot parents out there, and they're clearly cashing in on it.

[Ed Oscuro]

Whoa, there...I was just illustrating how we aren't really so complex after all. And I said humans, not Americans.

That's the problem. If we don't react rationally as adults, to outside stimuli, why do we expect kids to do so?

Oh, my mistake! I don't think it was harmful of me to write that, but perhaps redundant, though. No hard feelings meant, as usual.

[YoshiM]

It's funny but I'm getting the impression people are getting upset over a concept that's been a big seller for years.

On one side of the coin the violent games that are getting pumped out for violence sake is getting repugnant. When a big portion of hyping the game is stating how many way you can slice up an opponent over the game play or even graphics, there be issues. On the other side is that if the game is based on a level of realism there had BETTER be some sort of reaction when my target is shot/sliced/bloweduprealgood. Taking the now many-mentioned GTA: how much of the atmosphere would have been taken away if pedestrians weren't allowed to be harmed? The idea behind GTA, above and beyond being a gangster type dude, is that your activities are happening in a living breathing city. Gang wars are real, to have them either not happen or not have some sort of effect (cars damaged, people hurt) takes a level of realism the game is trying to portray. If you shot a guy and he just fell and blinked away, where's the grittiness in that? The game is about the life of a thug, to make the game less graphic by reducing gore or not allowing certain acts to be performed would undermine the concept.

As for "how far will it go"-it all depends on society in general. I doubt games will ever reach the Grandma Sodomizer game until the latest prime time show has Grannys Gone Wild syndicated. There's a line in regards to taste and while some games on the store shelves crossed it (BMX XXX) the result was a monetary kick in the crotch to the publisher as it was a sucky ass game and a lame attempt at attracting attention with polygon boobies. Due to American stigma with sex we probably won't see anything close to being as nasty as the rape/underage/shit/piss games that the Japanese have.

Edit: forgot to add-And I am THANKFUL that line (in regards to the hentai games) will probably never be crossed here.

[Ed Oscuro]

When the community gets big enough, you'll see those games marketed here. They won't be that big (ads for them aren't exactly plastered on Japanese webpages) but they will start to gain more of a following here. I KNOW that somebody in the US has bought some of 'em already, even if it's just stuff like eeeh the Viper series, since English-language websites have some for sale.

[SoulBlazer]

I have no problem admitting that I have some hentai games, bought from JAST USA (jastusa.com). SOME of them actually have very GOOD stories and charcters and are not just cheap excuses for sex. True Love is the best thing to a dating sim that we have in the States, and Season of the Sakura is a really complex and detailed game. Very little of that has been released in English. But I agree, just like with violence, if people enjoy that they will be encourged to buy more, and has the line been crossed?

Just like I enjoy playing 'good' hentai, I have no problem playing 'good' violence like GTA.

[lendelin]

People don't "just do what they read, see, or play." They have to internalize it first, and you, too, also have commited

"Oops I've fallen prey to a logical fallacy!"

Your fallacy is assuming that the only way young, impressionable people are affected by all the types of media they see, hear, and interact with every day is through a sort of mental osmosis.

That's not a logical fallacy, we just reason under different assumptions. One form of logical fallacy (based on false generalization) would be:

A=B: The tax cheater is a fox.
B=C: A fox is a four-legged animal.

A=C: Therefore, the tax cheater is a four-legged animal. :)

Ed Oscuro:

Say a kid goes online and discovers that he likes playin' CS (so far, a description which fits me). From the beginning his reactions to what he sees are shaped by his internal code of ethics and what he has normalized. Games, like movies, push ever so slightly (sometimes quite forcefully) up against the rules of our parents and what we ourselves consider to be good and right, but this pushing against the rules (if you will) does move the target further left.

We still haven't reached the most important part.

What is important is how kids react to the sense of community online, a community which now has products tailor-made for it like GTA:VC. The internet disseminates information quite well, and that applys equally to introducing kids to fetishes (what kid really heard of those before going online) as to old video game systems. I've even read that some people consider that "abnormal" behaviors that would normally be limited in scope have a chance to flourish out in the wild, as people feel they can take whatever antisocial behavior nagging at the back of their mind and take it further than they would have dared online. There's sites out there for violence, sites out there for sex, and there's sites out there where violence and sexuality meet in gory fashion.

Most of us turn away, but you cannot deny that this affects more people than it would have otherwise. This is much more dramatic than our talk about video games, but the same principle applies, even if this effect is less clear and noticeable.

In short, you assume a gradual, day by day, year by year influence on individuals (all ages, primarily children) which results in the harshening of their ethics, opens doors to dangerous and undesirable areas in the long run, or, like critics of videogame often say, in a general harshening of our culture.

My answer: We don't know, there aren't long-term studies about the effect of playing "violent" games on behavior. All studies examine the immediate effect after playing games, mostly 15 minutes after playing games, and measure heart-rate and blood pressure or toy choices (increase in heart rate and blood pressure = agressivity, potency to violence!!!!!!!! :)

You might be still right, but I suspect if studies don't find significant results (even with this questionable and sometimes ridiculous conceptualization) it's very doubtful that you find long-term effects. There are better studies about short- and long-term effects of pornography, and the results are insignificant, and in some cases even beneficial for certain kinds of psychological problems. (some psychologists use porn as a therapy)

I don't tghink that the long-haired Beatles, Jimmy Hendrix or Elvis Presley had devastating long-term effects on individuals and the society as a whole, and back then those phenomenas where perceived way more dangerous for a decline of moral standards than videogames today.

[lendelin]

Aswald:

Sorry, but people are not usually complex at all. For all of our so-called civilization, we still react to things as we did in caveman days.

/quote]

Don't you think that our instincts are moderated today compared to the more instinct-driven cavemen based on immediate survival interests? :) ...besides, don't be so sure that those cavemen were much simpler than we are, maybe they were psychologically very complex people.

[quote]Look at the Iraq war. A logical, sophisticated race might have asked why a beaten-down country was to be attacked, even though no evidence linking it to the September 11th attack really existed. A rational government would have been rquired to supply proof.

But what happened? The same old drum beating, the same old things that have been done for millenia, except over television. It worked.



I'm not going down the war road, otherwise we are all over the place instead of focusing on videogames. :) Just one thing, I completely supported and support the war, and I'm not easily manipulated. If you introduce manipulation in politics, always take into account that you might be also part of the manipulated masses, not only "others."


What programs are on the air, what games sell? The ones that appeal to our basest instincts: sex, violence, etc. Is it any coincidence that GTA emphasizes those themes? Find a hooker, then kill her.



Well, our instincts are there, like it or not. This goes for all of us in varying degrees (sex, violence, but also compassion, cooperation, which results friendliness and decency).

...but don't exaggerate, Gran Turismo is the second best selling game on the PS2, and I don't see any violence problem in this game, and the vast majority of best selling games aren't the Grand Theft Autos.


This is what makes the constant flow of such pop culture so deadly. It's like throwing napalm on a fire; you'll make it much worse. Human nature tends toward the ugly aspects, and glorifying such things, constantly, will surely bring it out. Especially if there's no "opposing message." It's no coincidence that the school violence of the 1990s happened in a grim, ugly decade in which darkness and a mindless violence and smut was glorified everywhere


That's either a negative carricature of the present, or a positive carricature of the past. I already pointed out that shool shootings and violence in schools decreased, not increased in the last thirty years.

I can't really see a glorification of violence and war, and the lack of an "opposing" message. I heard a lot about the terrible effects of violent games since the end of the 80s with the success of the NES; the basic arguments didn't change at all in the last 15 years: violent behavior, loneliness, depravation of social skills, ending up in fantasy worlds, etc. None of them proved to be true.


. I spoke of a barrier, or filter earlier. This was removed. In the 1980s, for example, pop culture usually had it: He-Man, Thundercats, The A-Team...it's hard to explain, but you know it when you see it. [...] There was the crime wave, but this was fueled by another human aspect: greed. And the rest of us fought it- except for those idiots who actually tried to glorify those lowlifes, but we as a whole shunned them.


The crime wave today is fueled by removing more and more barriers, but in the 70s and 80s it was just greed?? Today it's not fueled by greed anymore?...and what about the other decades, centuries, and milleniums? Crime is with us since Adam and Eve left paradise involuntarily, or in todays euphemistic language, they left based on poor judgement. Weren't barriers removed always, and secondary moral values changed threatening and changing core values? Don't you think it's not very convincing to explain present crime with 1) changing game content, and 2) changing game content as a reflection of general decline of pop culture in the 9Os??

You have a very grim and dark picture of human nature, I don't think that violence, egotism, irresponsible sex drive, and exploitation of others are the only character traits of human beings. There is also cooperation, friendliness, altruism, decency, and sometimes (albeit rarely) heroism.


To Aswald and Ed Oscuro:

To make sure, I don't doubt that the presentation of graphical violence and sex in general since the cultural revolution of the 60s became more explicit, but I doubt the effect you assume on human behavior for one simple reason: we get used to it, and do not simply internalize it and act simply what's presented!!

Even some studies about media content (including videogames) and violent behavior found that those who are more exposed to it than others are actually less affected by it!! These findings were conveniently overlooked (if I remember correctly it was a study by David Walsh) becasue this finding might suggest that human beings are more resistant to ouitside influences than you and the critics of videogames assume!

There are some psychological processes in us which transform outside influences, alters them, corrects them, declines them, or justifies them, not merely copies them. Additionally, the environemnt of the vast, vast majority of individuals consists not only of pure agression and violence, influences are a plenty, from the most indecent to the most decent. To assume that we are overwhelmed and bombarded by a plethora of glorified violence (constantly, in waves or gradually in low degrees) constructs an unrealistic laboratory setting which is not there in real life.

...and even if your assumption about the simple adaptation of constant and gradual violence in games is correct, don't you think that children and adults should adapt also very easily the good behavior and their rewards they experience in real life (amang many others, including videogames)?

Even the social learning theory in psychology (which attacks videogames in contrast to the katharsis theory) didn't come to grips with the Q how a variety of influences which are sometimes in stark contrast with each other are cognitively and emotionally processed and how they result in behavior.

Human beings are indeed very complex, and sometimes (not always) we even feel very very comfortable we the most contradicting values and feelings, and harmonize them. Our processing abilities of information is limited and full of surprises. In other words, Ed Ascuro and Aswald, there are not only the declining or increasing barriers outside of us, but also working barriers within us. The empirical findings of studies about videogames suggest that these barriers work very well.

The simple "you read, watch, and play, take it for granted, and then act upon it," is a scapegoat for the morally concerned who feel uncomfortable with value change, and look for simple explanations for something which is not easily explained, namely violence.

[calthaer]

My answer: We don't know, there aren't long-term studies about the effect of playing "violent" games on behavior. There are better studies about short- and long-term effects of pornography, and the results are insignificant, and in some cases even beneficial for certain kinds of psychological problems. (some psychologists use porn as a therapy)

SHOW ME TEH STUDIES I BOW DOWN TO THE STATISTICAL GODS AS WELL! If there's only 5% of the population driven to homicidal mania by these sorts of things then BRING IT ON I won't have MY freedoms limited by those 5% SCREW THEM LET THEM GO TO JAIL, HELL, AND WORSE IT'S A FREE COUNTRY I'm not looking out for their weak minds.

[Li Wang]

SHOW ME TEH STUDIES I BOW DOWN TO THE STATISTICAL GODS AS WELL! If there's only 5% of the population driven to homicidal mania by these sorts of things then BRING IT ON I won't have MY freedoms limited by those 5% SCREW THEM LET THEM GO TO JAIL, HELL, AND WORSE IT'S A FREE COUNTRY I'm not looking out for their weak minds.

So because there might be a slight chance of violent material setting some nut off, we're all responsible for reading their minds, and then modifying the world around them to a place tailored to their special needs? If you go nuts and start killing people over a video game you weren't mentally stable to begin with. If some psycho goes on a rampage after being told to do so by an empty cup of yogurt, are we all responsible for getting rid of all the empty cups of yogurt lest the tragedy happen again?

If you want to go ahead and babysit the mentally ill by all means go ahead. There are centers all around the country where you can volunteer to do so or take such a thing up as a career. But how anyone could come to the conclusion that everything anyone else creates or does should be edited with them in mind is beyond me.

[Deathstar]

I personally love this new breath of bloody, violent games that we seem to be getting as of the past year or two, and I hope Rockstar keeps it up.

On the other hand, they don't wanna make too many of these, otherwise, it will stale the market out. :(

[lendelin]

My answer: We don't know, there aren't long-term studies about the effect of playing "violent" games on behavior. There are better studies about short- and long-term effects of pornography, and the results are insignificant, and in some cases even beneficial for certain kinds of psychological problems. (some psychologists use porn as a therapy)

SHOW ME TEH STUDIES I BOW DOWN TO THE STATISTICAL GODS AS WELL! If there's only 5% of the population driven to homicidal mania by these sorts of things then BRING IT ON I won't have MY freedoms limited by those 5% SCREW THEM LET THEM GO TO JAIL, HELL, AND WORSE IT'S A FREE COUNTRY I'm not looking out for their weak minds.

This irony is a capitulation of good reasoning; :) and, btw, I fully agree with you! :) You cannot design a society for all possibilties end eventualities; and YOU cannot look out for all the weak minds, indeed. It's impossible. Of course there are individuals which will be pushed over the edge by videogames, but

1) then you have to get rid of a lot of things. Churches, Oprah Winfrey, Disney cartoons, Lord of the Rings and Sherlock Holmes novels....almost everything can "trigger" something in an individual; I don't wanna get rid of cigarettes, alcohol, football, baseball and many other things because some individual with a severe psychiological problem or bad behavior engages in a fight over a football game in a bar. I certainly won't blame football for violence becasue some guys use it as an opportunity to assault someone else.

Football is a relatively violent game. Players endure each weekend concussions equivalent of concussions in minor accidents. Thousands of people get excited and cheer for their team.

I will not blame football for a harshening of our culture which opens doors to everyday violence. I won't say that guys who watch and play this game learn how to resolve conflicts in a violent way and then use this learned behavior in everyday life. I won't blame football for the onset of war, either. (and this was done; in Germany in the 70s I watched a TV program about "peace research" which explained the Vietnam war with the popularity of the war-like, violent game of football in the US.)

2) if individuals break the law, get addicted to games, or loose themselves in a fantasy world, don't blame the games. In every little horror story I read in the news, or like some of the educational dicatators call it, "anecdotal evidence," the guy who played games and then committed a crime had some severe problems for a longer time already, and playing games was just used as a cheap scapegoat by the media or used as a cheap excuse by irresponsible or helpless parents.

Games are a fantasy world, they are fairy tales for kids and adults. It's tempting to "play" the bad guy sometimes because we are supposed to be the "good" guy in real life.

More polygons don't push the effect of games on behavior to a new level. The same discussion about violent games was there when the NES Contra allowed you to shoot at ACTUAL REAL people, and lil' Mega Man shooting at robot frogs was perceived as dangerous as well.

The argument that new gen game systems allows for more realism and therefore the research has to start from anew is a convenient delaying strategy by researchers who ran against the wall with their findings, and thus, keep the nonsense alive. For more than 15 years now the research hasn't shown any dangerous effects of playing violent games on behavior.

If we agree that there is no empirical evidence that violent games cause violent behavior, what then is this discussion all about? What's left is a mere uncomfortable feeling. There MUST be something, it CAN'T be right that a 16 year old plays these kind of games, there MUST be some effect of these games on our children.

Accept the fact that human beings are very complicated creatures who not merely imitate and can distinguish right from wrong, and can distinguish between a fantasy world and real life.

[Aswald]

Therefore, games about/cashing in on the September 11th, 2001 Attack, Child Molestation, and anything else should be o.k....

[Ed Oscuro]

In other words, Ed Ascuro and Aswald, there are not only the declining or increasing barriers outside of us, but also working barriers within us.

What the hell? That's the last time I let you "refute" me. I already said that, what's your point in repeating what I said?

[lendelin]

Therefore, games about/cashing in on the September 11th, 2001 Attack, Child Molestation, and anything else should be o.k....

Gimme a break :) YoshiM dealt with this argument already.

[Ed Oscuro]

Once upon a time people said "Abortions will only be used for emergencies, so they should be legal." Now abortions are used primarily at whim. It's true that abortions and video game violence are two things, and I doubt that violent video games will be as common as abortions (after all, you have to stare a game in the face). Still, the slippery-slope argument seems to have some credibility here, especially as we're looking at stuff that's pretty much already online in movies and pictures. If such games were to be done, you could bet they'd most likely be "humorous" first...

[lendelin]

In other words, Ed Ascuro and Aswald, there are not only the declining or increasing barriers outside of us, but also working barriers within us.

What the hell? That's the last time I let you "refute" me. I already said that, what's your point in repeating what I said?

That's no what you said; you argued that these barriers are getting slowly eroded towards violence by games and certain Internet sites, but the effects are less clear and noticeable; I said that barriers are there and in all likelihood they are an obstacle for the erosion between good and bad and mere imitation.

If I misunderstood you I'm sorry and I'm glad that you agree with me.

[dave2236]

I fully support Rockstar and I will continue to buy their games.

[Ed Oscuro]

Dear god. People have "barriers," but barriers can be eroded.

Simple question: Has anybody ever, in their whole life, changed their opinion on something they felt with absolute conviction? I suppose this looks like a straw man I'm kicking at, but I see a lot of evidence to suggest that kids have their comfort level shaped by exposure to games.

Certainly situational acceptability (i.e. it's OK to shoot folks in a game because you don't know it's real) is a major factor here, and I maintain that it's a bigger factor for why kids aren't radically more violent after being exposed to games than some sort of implacable barrier theory.

[ManekiNeko]

I used to argue against government enforced ratings in video games. After games like Grand Theft Auto II and the upcoming Manhunt, my position on this issue has completely changed. It's clear that kids under eighteen are playing these games... when people ask them about their favorites, inevitably, the first words out of their mouths will be "Grand Theft Auto". The question is, should children be playing these games? Are they really appropriate for that age group?
Video games have changed immensely in the twenty five years when they were first introduced to the public. The violence is no longer abstract, and the storylines are no longer limited to the player's imagination. It's time for everyone to acknowledge that not all games will be appropriate for all audiences. I don't normally support government regulation, but when some games have become more violent, more sadistic, and more interactive than adult television shows and films, it may be necessary to limit their audience to those mature enough to play them.

JR

[lendelin]

Dear god. People have "barriers," but barriers can be eroded.


Sure they can, but I argued against it when it comes to the effect of playing violent games on behavior.


Simple question: Has anybody ever, in their whole life, changed their opinion on something they felt with absolute conviction?

I can honestly say, yes I did, and not only once.


I suppose this looks like a straw man I'm kicking at, but I see a lot of evidence to suggest that kids have their comfort level shaped by exposure to games.


I don't really know what that means, and what it has to do with the topic.


Certainly situational acceptability (i.e. it's OK to shoot folks in a game because you don't know it's real) is a major factor here, ...

I'm glad that you shifted your arguments and acknowledge that adults and children from a certain age on can distinguish between real life and videogame content, and therfore not easily apply videogame behavior to real life.


...and I maintain that it's a bigger factor for why kids aren't radically more violent after being exposed to games than some sort of implacable barrier theory.

I'm not shooting out of my hips here, ok? :) If you don't like the wording psychological "barrier" (I picked it up from Aswald and argued against him) replace it with the more neutral "cognitive and emotional processing abilities" I referred to.

BTW, these psychological mechanisms are triggered WITHIN the setting of an "unrealistic" videogame, and can not be seperated from it as you suggest. After all, we know that it is wrong, just plain disgustful to shoot someone else or rob a bank, and it's interesting why and how we can play it without taking it seriously, and how we deal with murder, or something like speeding and being chased by the police which we experience as "fun" in a game although we know it's wrong and we never would do it in real life. That's when different psychological theries come in which mostly suggest that you moderate, or harmonize conflicting feelings, values and beliefs, or make them less negative or even positive, which always results in a stronger separation bewteen fanatsy and real life and therefore in all likelihood won't be applied to real life.

[lendelin]

The question is, should children be playing these games? Are they really appropriate for that age group?


That's why the ratings are in place, which gave developers actually more freedom regarding mature content.

The effect of those ratings are very limited as we can see about regulations about alcohol and drugs, therefore stricter regulations won't solve the problem. Parental involvement and responsibility is key, nothing else.

The M rating is 17, however, I wouldn't have any problems if a 15 year old plays GTA (certainly it should NOT be played by a 12 year old). Even studies about TV violence found out that there is basically no effect on behavior 15 and older. The older kids get, the less they imitate, and the more they are able to distinguish between real life and a game. That goes even for hormone driven male teenagers. :)

Since games are interactive (compared to the passive watching a movie or TV) and most psychological theories assume that an outlet for agression in a controlled environment is psychologically healthy (family members who hit each other with pillows, even 5 year old kids), I'd be very surprised if research would find a significant effect of playing violent games on behavior.

IF that will be the case, I'd be the first to argue to treat certain games like porn, I'd have no problems with it at all.


Video games have changed immensely in the twenty five years when they were first introduced to the public. The violence is no longer abstract, and the storylines are no longer limited to the player's imagination.

I disagree. How can violence be "abstract' based on differences in technology?? Since the NES times we have depictions of real people who get shot by players (in Contra), in SFII two players beat each other up, Mortal Kombat introduced blood, Nighttrap triggered the Lieberman/Kohl initiative. The same basic arguments are still alive and well since Contra. Back then 8bit sprites seemed very realistic and graphic, and today's new gen systems don't deliver movie like pic quality. A lot of polygons for sure, but far far away from realistic, life-like images.


It's time for everyone to acknowledge that not all games will be appropriate for all audiences.

I agree. The game industry expanded and grew up, and parents have to grow with it. The times like in 1986 are over when some "videogame" could be bought for a kid and it was appropriate. The industry became a market for adults as well.


I don't normally support government regulation, but when some games have become more violent, more sadistic, and more interactive than adult television shows and films, it may be necessary to limit their audience to those mature enough to play them.

I disagree. 1) Games aren't porn yet, 2) Interactivity in all likelihood lessens the effect of games on behavior (see above), 3) for movies like Terminator 3 and Horror movies a voluntary rating system is sufficient, same goes for videogames. Renting a tape like renting or buying a game is up to the parents, and so is what the parents let their kids watch and play. If you have irresponsible parents, nothing helps, no government regulation, no strict laws because their enforcement is very limited.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm glad that you shifted your arguments and acknowledge that adults and children from a certain age on can distinguish between real life and videogame content, and therfore not easily apply videogame behavior to real life.

I never would have argued otherwise--I must've been vague and you assumed this earlier.

My main concern with violence in video games isn't that it's going to cause kids to go out on a rampage, but rather that it alters their behavior in ways that are small and nearly unnoticeable. Hence the commentary earlier about groups--I've seen a couple people take this CS Sniper thing too far and start trying to live as a tough guy. What's to blame? Perhaps just bad influence from other kids. I have to admit that this line of reasoning leads away from the games themselves, and further towards the community.

That said--my argument that pushing the boundary in little ways affects what's acceptable behavior in real life should stand, and the further we push the farther out that internal barrier will be, I believe.

[zmweasel]

N/A

[SoulBlazer]

But what good is a rating system that's not enforced? There's no real incentive for stores to make sure they don't sell M rated games to kids under the age of 17, although, to be fair, most of the ones I know off DO try, at least. As someone said eariler, some games should just not be played by some people.

Maybe we need more games with a password option to 'lock' them, like some adult games have?

[lendelin]

I'm glad that you shifted your arguments and acknowledge that adults and children from a certain age on can distinguish between real life and videogame content, and therfore not easily apply videogame behavior to real life.

I never would have argued otherwise--I must've been vague and you assumed this earlier.

My main concern with violence in video games isn't that it's going to cause kids to go out on a rampage, but rather that it alters their behavior in ways that are small and nearly unnoticeable. Hence the commentary earlier about groups--I've seen a couple people take this CS Sniper thing too far and start trying to live as a tough guy. What's to blame? Perhaps just bad influence from other kids. I have to admit that this line of reasoning leads away from the games themselves, and further towards the community.

That said--my argument that pushing the boundary in little ways affects what's acceptable behavior in real life should stand, and the further we push the farther out that internal barrier will be, I believe.

That's exactly how I summarized your argument the first time; and I disagree. The gradual, incremental, little by little, hardly noticeable step-by-step erosion of moral standards and therefore behavior (!) isn't convincing, but still as dangerous as the "immediate rampage" argument; after all, after ten years of constant tiny bitty little shifting of barriers, we should see a a noticeable effect, probably a violent one, I assume. Gradual internalized effects accumulate, and would be even more resistant than short-term effects.

1) We don't know for sure if playing the bad guy in a violent game affects behavior at all in the short term, in a negative way or maybe even in a positive way. If short-term behaviorial effects immediately after playing a game can't be detected, I doubt that "hardly noticeable" behavoiral change in the long-term will be noticeable at all. I speculate that they just...disappear...puff...because

2) You underestimate the existence of other influences as well which act as correctives, we are not only exposed to violent media content; furthermore, you underestimate value change durimg life cycles. This goes in particular for an argument of an incremental, gradual change of moral standards over years.

A 15 year old will graduate, goes to College or has a job (probably both), and this changes values and emphases on life. If you get a real job, and have to pay income taxes, life perspectives change again, in particular if you fall in love and get married. Our 15 year old will then be 25. Maybe two years later he will have a child, which again is a big step and changes outlook on life drastically. What's left then of this accumulating silent revolution of moral standards after ten or twelve years?

Do you really think your gradual erosion of moral standards and their possible effect on behavior hold up? Only if you assume that

1) there is nothing else for an individual than an overwhelming bombardment of violence, which is almost an unrealistic remote island setting or laboratory setting, and

2) moral standards or values move only in ONE direction, which is also unrealistic, for an individual and for society as a whole. (since the 60s there are lots of value changes, and lots of backlashes, in stark conflict with each other)

Nope, don't be too concerned, people don't move so fast and change behavior easily, they are sluggish, and that's sometimes good, and sometimes bad if we wish they should move. In the case of videogames, the resistance of people is a good thing.

[YoshiM]

I used to argue against government enforced ratings in video games. After games like Grand Theft Auto II and the upcoming Manhunt, my position on this issue has completely changed. It's clear that kids under eighteen are playing these games... when people ask them about their favorites, inevitably, the first words out of their mouths will be "Grand Theft Auto". The question is, should children be playing these games? Are they really appropriate for that age group?
Video games have changed immensely in the twenty five years when they were first introduced to the public. The violence is no longer abstract, and the storylines are no longer limited to the player's imagination. It's time for everyone to acknowledge that not all games will be appropriate for all audiences. I don't normally support government regulation, but when some games have become more violent, more sadistic, and more interactive than adult television shows and films, it may be necessary to limit their audience to those mature enough to play them.

JR

I agree, not all games are for all audiences.

Taking the games concept out for a moment, when HASN'T a kid mentioned something as their "favorite" that would raise eyebrows (other than for those little year book questionares)? At one time it was any rock and roll, then stuff by 2 Live Crew, next it was the song "Cop Killer". During the 80's what kid didn't say that Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, or maybe even Texas Chainsaw Massacre was "cool". Or how about something we probably didn't think of as being bad: how many kids in your class, after seeing the movie Beetlejuice for the first time, joined in grabbed their crotches while reciting "Hey! Nice f'n model! HONK HONK!"?

The point I'm driving at is kids will sniff out the taboo stuff. The more stuck up a person is about something that's questionable the more the kid will find out what's so bad about it. Now this is not me saying that "kids will wanna see the bad stuff, so let them", I'm just reminding you of how things are.

Government control on violent games is not the answer and never will be. For one they can't stop there as movies and other non interactive media can also be seen as influences on violent behavior. If you chuckle at that, do you remember the Power Ranger craze or the Ninja Turtle craze before it? Kids were kicking and punching each other while spouting popular phrases from the shows, concerning parents and local media. Control can start to steamroll into other areas that could (though an illogical extreme) restrict an adult from enjoying mature content. You wouldn't want to be driving down the road, listening to the latest Ludacris or Outkast CD at a somewhat loud volume and be pulled over by the police due to the possiblity of your music being heard by children? Or be denied access to an R rated movie if you are a parent just in case your kids may see it? As I said, extreme but it still gets you thinking. But no matter what, if the kids want to see it they will usually find a way.

If there is to be control over content, it starts at home. Calling your child's friends' parents and asking what games they play or notifying the parents that X Game has questionable content and that your child shouldn't play it is a start. Using ratings lockouts on enabled systems is another. Best of all, actually TALKING to the child and explaining the games would probably be the best. In a world where even our local TV news programs and newspapers are filled with stories of violence, carnage, rape, and drugs the kids are already bombarded with violent reality a little coaching from the ones closest to them can make a lot of difference.

[ManekiNeko]

I used to argue against government enforced ratings in video games. After games like Grand Theft Auto II and the upcoming Manhunt, my position on this issue has completely changed.

A self-enforced rating system, a la the MPAA and ESRB, is good business; a government-enforced rating system is Big Brother/"Fahrenheit 451" censorship, and a horrifying precedent. Don't be so quick to give away your (and my) personal freedoms under your terribly misguided notion that the government always has your best interests in mind.

-- Z.

I was under the impression that adult films were already regulated, in that you couldn't sell or rent them to children. Adult movies are even kept in an enclosed section seperate from the remainder of the films in most video stores. I don't consider that a "horrifying precedent"... it's just responsible legislation.
I'm as anti-government as the next guy, but let's face it, games like Grand Theft Auto III are being played by kids... and I'd wager that a significant portion of Rockstar's audience is under eighteen. When the cigarette companies tried to lure minors into using products that were clearly inappropriate for them, they were forced to stop. The video game industry is doing the same thing right now, selling games to an audience that should not have access to them. The reason the ISDA is fighting so hard against enforced ratings is not due to the issue of free speech, but because they know that they'll lose millions and millions of dollars in profit when kids are no longer able to purchase or play games like Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance and Grand Theft Auto III.
Sure, the games are rated, but like the Surgeon General's warning on packs of cigarettes, absolutely nobody takes those ratings seriously. It's time that changed. The ISDA is going to have to work a lot harder to make people notice those ratings... or the government is going to do it for them.

JR

[Mayhem]

I would also argue here that in some cases, such as GTA3 and the ilk, that it isn't just a question of kids (inappropriately) playing the game because all their friends are, and playing the game may trigger them to be violent. It may well be that a proportion are children who already have a tendence to be violent are playing the game because it suits their nature.

[Ed Oscuro]

Hmm. Perhaps what I'm looking at is typical teenaged idiocy after all. I will say that moral standards are different today than what they were years ago...but I won't say that we're worse off as a result.

[lendelin]

...and playing the game may trigger them to be violent.

We don't know that, there is no empirical proof.

BUT, you are exactly right with this notion:


It may well be that a proportion are children who already have a tendence to be violent are playing the game because it suits their nature.

This is indeed one of the key problems of the studies. About 70% of all empirical analyses about the topic work with mere positive correlations, which is from rudimentary to laughable. That means, they often find that "agressive" or 'violent" children play "agressive" or "violent games." But this says nothing about cause-effect relationships. It might be that children who are agressive in the first place are attracted playing these games; That's all we can say. It doesn't mean that it increases their agression, not to mention "violent" behavior. Playing these games might increase their agression, might have no effect at all, or might even decrease their agression.

The bothersome part is that these kind of empirical studies are used on websites with a political agenda (like the Institute for Media and the Family) in order to imply constantly that games CAUSE violent behavior, although they know better and it cannot be substantiated by research.

Mere correlations are a big problem in statistics. You find all kinds of crazy positive correlations. Ice cream consumption goes up in the summer, and birth rates go up 9 or ten months later. Clearly a positive correlation; but we can say for sure that eating ice cream doesn't lead to pregnancy.

The studies which go actually into cause-effect relationships use rudimentary statistics, very questionable conceptualizations, are only short-term studies, and do not look at actual behavior at all after games are played.

[lendelin]

I was under the impression that adult films were already regulated, in that you couldn't sell or rent them to children. Adult movies are even kept in an enclosed section seperate from the remainder of the films in most video stores. I don't consider that a "horrifying precedent"... it's just responsible legislation.
JR

Don't push for these kinds of stricter regulations becasue it is counterproductive in every regard.

1) If you limit the access of these games (like for porn, sold in separate, enclosed rooms), I guarantee you that you'll end up with more violent games, and epecially with sex and porn games....and I mean PORN games.

The stricter the regulations, the more freedom game developers have. As soon as the M rating was introduced, game developers could put MORE mature content on games than ever before. They couldn't do it to such an extent becasue the access and regulations were murky, therefore they had to be careful about the loud outcry "what about our children." Now they can use the strong argument "it's labeled M, it's a clear guideline, it shouldn't be sold to to guys under 17!" which shifted the responsibility for game content to stores and parents.

If you sell these kinds of games it would open doors to sexual content and even porn, and I don't mean with that just breasts and topless women. You might even end up with a distinction of the M rating, like a S for sex and P for Porn....and then a lot is possible for games.

If you're interested preventing these kind of games, don't push for stricter regulations and leave it in the murky state it is. It prevents these kind of games, stricter regulations are a breeding ground for them.

2) You still have the problem that minors will somehow find a way to access these games, now even more "hardcore" games than ever before which would really create a problem. (same goes for alcohol, doesn't it?)

3) You still have the problem that regulations and laws regarding movie content, game content, or book content, are not enforceable regulations in the privacy of your home.

4) You'll end up with a heavy "freedom of choice/privacy in your home vs. governemnt regulation' debate. It's not a matter of freedom of speech, becasue the freedom of speech will run more rampant than ever.

No, leave it there where it really counts and which is the only effective control you can have, namely with parents. You have to accept the fact that you have irresponsible parents sometimes, it doesn't justify govrnment regulations which intrudes in the privacy of your own home.

[lendelin]

I agree, not all games are for all audiences.

Taking the games concept out for a moment, when HASN'T a kid mentioned something as their "favorite" that would raise eyebrows (other than for those little year book questionares)? At one time it was any rock and roll, then stuff by 2 Live Crew, next it was the song "Cop Killer". During the 80's what kid didn't say that Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, or maybe even Texas Chainsaw Massacre was "cool". Or how about something we probably didn't think of as being bad: how many kids in your class, after seeing the movie Beetlejuice for the first time, joined in grabbed their crotches while reciting "Hey! Nice f'n model! HONK HONK!"?

The point I'm driving at is kids will sniff out the taboo stuff. The more stuck up a person is about something that's questionable the more the kid will find out what's so bad about it. Now this is not me saying that "kids will wanna see the bad stuff, so let them", I'm just reminding you of how things are.

Government control on violent games is not the answer and never will be. For one they can't stop there as movies and other non interactive media can also be seen as influences on violent behavior. If you chuckle at that, do you remember the Power Ranger craze or the Ninja Turtle craze before it? Kids were kicking and punching each other while spouting popular phrases from the shows, concerning parents and local media. Control can start to steamroll into other areas that could (though an illogical extreme) restrict an adult from enjoying mature content. You wouldn't want to be driving down the road, listening to the latest Ludacris or Outkast CD at a somewhat loud volume and be pulled over by the police due to the possiblity of your music being heard by children? Or be denied access to an R rated movie if you are a parent just in case your kids may see it? As I said, extreme but it still gets you thinking. But no matter what, if the kids want to see it they will usually find a way.

If there is to be control over content, it starts at home. Calling your child's friends' parents and asking what games they play or notifying the parents that X Game has questionable content and that your child shouldn't play it is a start. Using ratings lockouts on enabled systems is another. Best of all, actually TALKING to the child and explaining the games would probably be the best. In a world where even our local TV news programs and newspapers are filled with stories of violence, carnage, rape, and drugs the kids are already bombarded with violent reality a little coaching from the ones closest to them can make a lot of difference.

I couldn't agree more, this is one of the most reasonable posts I read in a long time.

[Arcade Antics]

Sure, the games are rated, but like the Surgeon General's warning on packs of cigarettes, absolutely nobody takes those ratings seriously.

Again, I'd like to point out that this statement is just plain unfair.

I have yet to see a game shop or general merch. shop (Target, etc.) sell an M rated game to a kid. Ever. Now granted, I'm not there 24/7, but I've seen plenty of kids ask to buy those games and they're always told "no."

Bottom line: plenty of people take the game ratings seriously. Some parents choose to ignore them. Life goes on.

[Ed Oscuro]

I've only seen the ratings sort of ignored once, and that wasn't an M game, but rather selling a copy of Area 51 on the PSX to my brother (I was there as well).

[ManekiNeko]

Sure, the games are rated, but like the Surgeon General's warning on packs of cigarettes, absolutely nobody takes those ratings seriously.

Again, I'd like to point out that this statement is just plain unfair.

I have yet to see a game shop or general merch. shop (Target, etc.) sell an M rated game to a kid. Ever. Now granted, I'm not there 24/7, but I've seen plenty of kids ask to buy those games and they're always told "no."

Bottom line: plenty of people take the game ratings seriously. Some parents choose to ignore them. Life goes on.

Oh come on, Antics. They're getting these games from somewhere. They're not just dropping out of the sky and into their hands.
Part of the problem is that adults just don't give a crap what their children are playing. They seem to think that everything is fair game despite the rating on the box, because hey, they're just video games. Well, things aren't that simple anymore. I'll say it again... the ratings need to be taken more seriously.

JR

[zmweasel]

N/A

[lendelin]

Oh come on, Antics. They're getting these games from somewhere. They're not just dropping out of the sky and into their hands.


Yep, the same goes for cigarettes and alcohol. There you have your stricter regulations, and they have limited effect. Don't you agree that cigarette smoking and drinking alcohol is more dangerous than playing videogames?


Well, things aren't that simple anymore. I'll say it again... the ratings need to be taken more seriously.


Yep, by the parents, not by the government. Don't go down the stricter regulations road, because 1) every attempt of stricter laws (for stores which sell M rated games to minors, outlaw certain kinds of games) were taken back by courts or died in the initiative phase for good reasons, 2) would be counter-productive, as I pointed out.

[lendelin]

Well, I apologize, the following is a long review essay, and you might fall asleep reading it, but it I'm sure it helps to clarify some Qs. It's exactly about the topic, and I wrote it around 8 months ago.

It's about empirical studies about the effect of violent games on behavior, and almost every issue discussed in the forum is addressed. Enjoy...or...just skip. :)


SCIENCE, FADS AND POLITICS - A CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE EFFECT OF VIDEOGAMES ON VIOLENT BEHAVIOR

Ever since High School shootings and the tremendous success of Grand Theft Auto 3, violent games are under increased attack by concerned parents and educators. Flashy news headlines of crimes committed by adolescents who are playing games go hand in hand with interviews of politicians who like to ban videogames and point to games as a possible explanation for crime rates.

The "National Institute On Media And The Family" (1) which works very closely with Senators Lieberman and Kohl paints a very dark picture about the effect of violent games on violent behavior, (2) and refers to research about the topic. (3) Looking at the actual research I noticed that it was biased, and furthermore the Institutes own research didn't justify their "jump-to- conclusions" findings of their website which is propaganda in science clothing at best.

To better understand what we know and don't know about the effects of violent videogames on children, I took a closer look at the most quoted articles, research papers and literature reviews (not an exhaustive review, around 15-20 articles)


RESEARCH FINDINGS AND PROBLEMS - SUMMARY

The research findings are ambiguous at best. Around 50% of the research find a positive correlation between playing violent games and violent behavior. In order to balance the quoted research of the Institute I refer to some other other important sources:

----Time spent playing with videogames was not correlated with aggression for middle school kids (144 females, 134 males), although boys with a preference for aggressive games were perceived as more aggressive by peers. (Wiegman & van Shie, Social Psychology, 1998)

---- A literature review of 59 studies conducted by the Washington State Dept of Health concludes that current research evidence is not supportive of a major concern that violent games lead to real life violence. (Bensley and Van Eenwyk, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol 29, 2001)

-----No differences in measures of aggressive thought were found for 52 3rd and 4th graders who played Mortal Kombat versus a basketball sim. (Kirsh, Childhood - a Global Journal of Child Research, 5, Volume 2, 1998)

---- An extensive literature review found video game violence to have little negative effects on their players (Griffiths, Mark, 1999. Violent Video Games and Agression: A Review of the Literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, v. 4, n. 10)

What do these ambiguous results mean? Can we say anything about the effect of violent games on violent behavior? Absolutely not. The ambiguity is a result of fundamental research problems which plague all the articles. Here's a summary of inconsistencies and weaknesses:


1. CORRELATIONS VS. CAUSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS

Much of the research is correlational only. Relationships may be shown, but they may be coincidental or caused by other individual, family and social factors. Mere correlations are a big problem of statistics. You find positive correlations about ice cream consumption and birthrates, and squirrel populations and the concentration of Germans living in an area, but we certainly can say that eating ice cream doesn't cause pregnancy and Germans don't attract squirrels.

In this specific case it is possible that children who are violent in the first place are attracted to playing violent games, and therefore you find a positive correlation; but it says nothing about the effect of playing games on behavior, it might increase aggression, decrease aggression or might have no effect at all. We just don't know.

While the Institute gives constantly the impression that playing violent games CAUSES aggressive behavior, they contradict themselves in their own recent research paper: "Also, the findings reported here are correlational and do not merit causal assessment." (4) This paper is often used on their own website as a reference for the implied dark picture that playing aggressive games causes aggressive behavior.


2. DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENTS OF AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE

Violence is defined in many ways and thus makes drawing conclusions very difficult. What's considered violent to one person may seem innocuous to another. Games like Mario, Zelda, Sonic, and even Saturday morning cartoon-like depictions of bopping, smashing, shooting, flying into and rolling over objects and characters might be considered violent. On the other hand, racing and sports games were characterized as containing minimal violence, although one might argue that hockey brawls and car crashing are violent in nature. Determining how researchers have defined and measured violence is the first step to interpret study findings.

There is some evidence that children who play violent games are more aggressive for a few moments immediately following gameplay. But even this finding is questionable, when you look at the ways in which "aggression" is measured (increase in heart rate and blood pressure, negative responses on questionnaires, toy choice, etc.)

If children failed to show empathy in real situations, or tried to hurt another child following violent gameplay, THEN we'd have a problem. Even more so if such aggressive acts and feelings were exhibited over time.

It is important not to underestimate the degree to which children are able to separate fantasy from reality, which is at the center of this debate. Videogame experiences may be not acted out in real life. Furhermore, the ability to distinguish between fantasy and real life increases with age, and the mere imitation decreases dramatically when kids get older. (compared a 8 year old to a 14 year old)


3. SHORT-TERM STUDIES

Many of the studies examine only short-term consequences in the form of behavior immediately following exposure to videogame violence, as opposed to examining any long-term effects.


4. INCONSISTENCIES COMPARING VIDEOGAMES

Each study uses different types of videogames (e.g. sports, shooters, action/adventure) with different types and levels of violence. Some studies don't report the type or names of the videogames used in the analysis. These factors make comparisons and conclusions difficult to ascertain.

Some studies even compare videogames to non-videogames, which makes the findings even more questionable in association with measurement problems. If you let a teenager play a heart-pounding, action-filled game compared to reading a book with poems, it is no surprise that the latter results in an increase in heart-rate and blood pressure.


AWARENESS, RESPONSIBILITY AND COMMON SENSE

I'm not saying that different games are automatically for everyone. As with most aspects of raising kids, it comes down to parent supervision and involvement. The responsibility of parents is key, not the activities of game developers, retailers, or kids who manage to buy an M-rated game. The effect of laws and restrictions are very limited as we can see when it comes to alcohol and smoking. Parents whose child committed a crime mention every reason but themselves, it is their moral responsibility to be aware of what their child is purchasing and playing in their rooms.

Can a game push an individual over the edge? Absolutely. But this is true for almost everything, from a Disney cartoon and reading "Lord of the Rings" to watching Oprah Winfrey and a church visit. As a society we are obsessed watching and playing relatively violent games like football, which can certainly bring an individual over the edge, but does it increase crime rates and is it dangerous for the morals of our society ? "Anecdotal evidence" as quoted in the Institutes website and flashy headlines in the news only create hysteria and scapegoats of problems which go much deeper than playing videogames. Educational dictators with a political agenda and politicians who go vote hunting with the simplest of arguments don't enlighten the issue of violence and crime, they actually deflect from it.

What's needed is not only better research, but also more common sense when it comes to the issue of playing violent games and violent behavior. Human beings, including children, have always been fascinated by violence and fear. Horror movies and roller coasters exist because we want to face our fear and control it. Grimm's fairy tales, centuries old, are some of the most violent materials ever written for children. Theoretically, fairy tales and videogames may serve to promote aggressive tendencies or to release aggressive tendencies, as predicted by the social learning theory and catharsis theory, respectively. As highly developed mammals, violence is with us. We can limit it's extent and irresponsible effects, but we can't eliminate it, we can only channel it.

Might there be positive effects? It might be that playing violent games may actually help children channel or reduce their aggression. Playing sports has long been seen as a means of channeling energy and aggressive tendencies - could it be possible that playing violent videogames might have similar benefits? We just don't know, we have to wait for better research.

Until then, be aware of hysteria, academics with a political agenda, and politicians who exploit concerns of citizens for their own benefit - if it makes sense or not.


(1) http://www.mediafamily.org/
(2) http://www.mediafamily.org/research/report_vgrc_2002-2.shtml
(3) http://www.mediafamily.org/research/index.shtml
(4) http://www.mediafamily.org/research/report_issbd_2002.shtml

[Stamp Mcfury]

Sure, the games are rated, but like the Surgeon General's warning on packs of cigarettes, absolutely nobody takes those ratings seriously.

Again, I'd like to point out that this statement is just plain unfair.

I have yet to see a game shop or general merch. shop (Target, etc.) sell an M rated game to a kid. Ever. Now granted, I'm not there 24/7, but I've seen plenty of kids ask to buy those games and they're always told "no."

Bottom line: plenty of people take the game ratings seriously. Some parents choose to ignore them. Life goes on.

Oh come on, Antics. They're getting these games from somewhere. They're not just dropping out of the sky and into their hands.
Part of the problem is that adults just don't give a crap what their children are playing. They seem to think that everything is fair game despite the rating on the box, because hey, they're just video games. Well, things aren't that simple anymore. I'll say it again... the ratings need to be taken more seriously.

JR

Retail stores do take it seriously. In some stores You have to enter the buyers date of birth to buy a M rated game. I don't know if the same is true in smaller stores or places like babbages, but most places you do have to be 17+ to buy a M game

I know its been said in this thread before but its the parents resonsibility to watch there children. There are parents who let there kids play M rated games, but there are also parents who buy there kids cigarettes or let there kids drink. Some adults are just not going care to follow the guidlines If there going to let there kids play violent games then its really there choice and responsility.

[Aswald]

Maybe one problem here is my age.

Several people here have used pseudo-sophisticated sounding arguments which can be boiled down to "it doesn't matter; people are ethical and know the difference between right and wrong." Only problem is, I've heard this before.

Back in the 1970s, from 1960s radicals and the like, the same basic arguments were used when policies on crime and punishment were being debated (I was around then). Well, we soon saw the results of that: the crime wave of the late 1970s and the 1980s.

The problem many people have here is they're too damn jaded to know when certain disturbing trends appear, because they've never really seen anything "before." This alone should prove the point, but...what did we get in the 1990s? Senseless school shootings, something we didn't have even in my admitedly violent 1980s. But while this alone was new and terrible, there was something else- the fact that both male and female alike were targeted. In terms of male violence patterns, this was something freakish; while rape and murder have always been there, nothing like this was- even Jack the Ripper had a twisted, specific motive. Even in my day, you didn't prove how tough you were by beating up on or killing girls. Quite the opposite.

But, those who weren't intimidated by the politically-correct and their predictable rantings pointed out that this sort of thing coincided exactly- EXACTLY- with the proliferation of violent, attitudenal, psychotic female characters in the media.

The basic idea of "men shouldn't beat up on women" is a basic rule that only an imbecile- yes, I said "imbecile," and I'll say it again if I have to- will expect to work when anyone today, from the day they are born, are drowned in an era of women as violent warriors who shoot, stab, and blow things up, and are at least equal to men as killers and warriors. It's not like "She-Ra" or "Cheetarah (ThunderCats)," who in no way resembled today's female action heroes. What we have here now is a complete contradiction of what society expects, and there is absolutely no way in this universe or any other that it can possibly work. In short, women are violent killers, equal to men; therefore, why should they be treated any more nicely? Courtesy of today's pop culture.

Like it or not, pop culture does influence what we do. Back in the 1980s, when "Miami Vice" was popular, people dressed like the main characters, and Don Johnson's "haven't shaved in a day or two" look actually inspired a razor that gave you that look! In the 1990s, when Kriss Kross wore their clothes backwards, so did many kids. How many slang terms were inspired by pop culture? Advertising spends billions every year to influence us, adults and children; do you think they'd spend all of that money if it had no effect on us? They're not putting guns to our heads, yet...they manipulate us successfully. What we see and hear.

Don't think a game glorifying child molestation will appear? Why not? 20 years ago, nobody woud've believed we'd be where we are now. People, from the day they are born, are constantly exposed to graphic violence, games that glorify being a murderer (GTA: Vice City), constantly, endlessly...it's the technological equivalent of peer pressure or "voices in your head." Don't think for one moment that, some years down the road, we're not going to regret it. Just like before.

Parents should be more diligent? Sure, in a perfect, or at least sane world, but that's NOT what's happening. Look at what's filling in the void. For years people go by what it "should" be, rather than what it actually IS, and that's a recipe for disaster. These game companies and studios don't give a damn what the result will be, so they'll keep lowering the standards. "Hey- here's a hot new game where you play a Roman Catholic Priest, out to molest as many children as possible! If caught, transfer to a different area! Manipulate Church politics! And watch out for the angry redneck Lutheran parent whose kid you grabbed by mistake!" Coming December 13th, only $45.00 (plus tax).

Hey, why not? It's only a game, right?

[Ed Oscuro]

For myself, it's again the pop culture aspect. I lost faith in my argument a while back, but I can't shake the feeling that kids just shouldn't necessarily be around this stuff. I know little boys (myself included once upon a time) tend to revel in explosions and things that go bang, but I never played to watch somebody bleed or because I really liked flinging bodies around.

I don't think that it's the games so much as an inherent quality of some kids, but you have to remember that TV and games have been reinventing themselves. Here's one--if somebody's being chased in an older TV show it's usually shown from the perspective of the chased person, therefore you have to sympathize with them. In newer TV (just take X-Files which seems to love innocent people getting screwed over) it's just the opposite. While this doesn't change how I feel about TV (obviously, since I'm not pleased with it) I believe that these things affect how people empathize with others (or fail to) when they grow up with them.