Influence on video games and violence

[letianchen]

After buying GTA 5 a couple days ago, I heard people talking about the effects that could transfer from video games to real life. Here is a video
Erin Burnett: Is Someone That Kills A Prostitute Playing GTA More Likely To Kill People? - YouTube
Do you think violence can transfer from something like a game to real life? If so, how is it to be addressed?

 

[nahadef]

I've been playing Saints Row the Third for the past few weeks, and I'm getting better at head shots... I loathe guns, and would never have one in my house.

Those it might effect are already in trouble mentally, and it is more the responsibility of the parent than anyone else, or a chemical thing. I think GTA is about as dangerous as The Catcher in the Rye (which was directly connected to deaths).

The gun industry is responsible too, for spending countless R & D on finding new, more efficient ways to kill people.

 

[letianchen]

Funny you say that I had to read that book last year in school... such a bad book imo...
I think you should play GTA 5 its pretty awesome, I havent got to play much of it because its too time consuming like skyrim..

I saw on a online tv network that a guy who knew someone else in real life were trash talking each other on Xbox live and saying they are **** at the game ( If i recall correctly it was MW2, idk tho) and then at one point the guy said I will kill you, im coming to your house now, the guy lived right across the street apparently and came and stabbed the guy like 10 times but he somehow lived.. crazy huh, but yeah you can't blame video games for the crazy people on this earth..

 

[Yzlot]

Actually, when I was taking one of my writing classes, my teacher decided to bring up this one topic and asked for our opinions. There was this one girl who had mentioned she had taken a "special" video game course which she had decided to take, which required her to play GTA 4(Man, I wish I had taken that class). But anyway, she had almost never played any sort video games before. So imagine the shock she went through when one of the first games she played was GTA 4. "I can't believe they sell these types of games. Are they encouraging violence and people to kill each other? What is wrong with these people?" Ironically, my teacher was also a gamer, and wasn't too happy with her constant, typical nagging of the influence of video games on violence.

I mean, what do video games like this teach you? That you can kill people with guns if you kill them with headshots? That you can stab someone multiple times and kill them? That kids might think killing someone might be 'cool'?(Who the hell are they gonna impress after killing someone. The gangsters?) Anyone with a brain can figure that out. No video game is gonna actually be able to influence a person to kill someone in and of itself. It's likely just a parent being negligible and not wanting to take the blame. They don't want to admit they raised the kid so wrong that they could be this easily influenced by 'video games', etc. So they blame video games(this trope actually plays to a lot of different areas, here in the US). Though actually, lots of people use these sorts of games as outlets. It's much better to kill someone in a game than to do it in real life, I would say.

Like the link you just posted, they just happened to be arguing over a game. But that person would have most likely just as easily ticked off if some situation happened and it pissed him off in rl.

The more they try to run away from the fact that violence exists(i.e. hiding it from video games), the more they push themselves into a corner. And when the actual situation happens to them, they won't know how to cope with it. And then more of the blame game.

I'll stop my ranting now. But yea, it's a great game.

 

[nahadef]

I don't think influence is the best word for it. It's not that a game would make someone a shooter, it's that someone who would be a shooter is drawn to games. There's a similarity to drug use. It used to be said that drugs induced mental instability, but the truth was that mentally unstable were drawn to drugs (which could exacerbate problems).

 

[Haruspex]

Nahadef alluded to it already, but I think violent video games exist for a reason. It's not that violent video games make people have aggressive urges, it's simply that we have our innate - one might even say primordial - urges to thank for violent video games. Video games are a form of escapism and the fact that violent video games (some, anyway) are popular seems to suggest that there is great demand for violent escapism.

Just look at the manifestations of human violence before our current era of violent visual media. They were nothing short of gruesome, especially the last two significant ones. The Aztecs or the Vikings didn't have PCs or consoles to play violent video games on and there were no games back then promoting genocide (I'm talking about the countless acts of genocide throughout human history). Or simply look at domestic violence. The domestic settings is one where violence is the least useful course of action in solving inter-personal or monetary problems in the long term, yet look at how popular it is?

As is often the case, I blame morality. It is all too often a feeling of moral integrity and 'rightness' that facilitates acts of violence by portraying them as justified and necessary in the eyes of the aggressor.

 

[nahadef]

Nahadef alluded to it already, but I think violent video games exist for a reason. It's not that violent video games make people have aggressive urges, it's simply that we have our innate...

No, I alluded to nothing of the sort, and I disagree with the whole of your extrapolation. Strongly disagree.

I think Derfel understands basically nothing of the human experience, except the most base ideas.

 

[Haruspex]

I don't think influence is the best word for it. It's not that a game would make someone a shooter, it's that someone who would be a shooter is drawn to games.

I guess I was mistaken to construe your statement in such a manner that relies on the ordinary connotations of words. Terribly sorry for looking for meaning where there's none to be found.

Your backhand dismissal of my arguments suggests that you either have no rebuttal or you're simply full of yourself, quite possibly both. Take your pick, pal.

 

[letianchen]

Rather than using the word "innate" I think maybe the society and our parents and our friends we grow up with judge our perception on what is good to do or not, you can think of it like religion alot of people are just born into it and accept it few actually question it, if there was a society were killing people was the norm the minority would probably oppose it, or this is what I would think would happen.. Not to mention this is probably how it was back in the early days

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I used to play war strategy games a lot when I was younger. Now I play only first person shooter games.

Because of who I am, I think this makes me less likely to be violent. I get it out through the games.

But if I was someone else, someone with no self-control, mental issues, unstable environment, I could see the games being a factor in me doing something violent, sick and outrageous.

My son is not yet three and obviously does not understand any of this. He has very little self control. I do not want him to see the games I play or violence on TV. At his stage in development I do believe they could lead to a more-than-usual lust for and normalization of extreme violence and death. But he does see things for the moments I am not quick enough to quit the game or change the channel.

Has anyone ever done a study where small children were playing or viewing these games and how they turned out when they got older? I don't think so. I cannot imagine they have no effect.

By no means am I about the sound the battle cry against these games, like some do who swear there is always a direct effect for the worse in all people. I do not believe that. I believe it largely depends on the person and I believe most will not be led down a path of violence and murder by games, but rather the opposite.

But I do support a parent's right to reject these games up until about 9 or 10, and after that, I think some clear individual problem must be indentified to continue denying what so many of their friends are playing.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

No, I alluded to nothing of the sort, and I disagree with the whole of your extrapolation. Strongly disagree.

I think Derfel understands basically nothing of the human experience, except the most base ideas.

The attitude of this post I think was quite unnecessary.

It's not that a game would make someone a shooter, it's that someone who would be a shooter is drawn to games.

I can see how Derfel went from that to his post. "Alluded to" might not be quite the right words, but could have a bit of chilling out?

 

[nahadef]

I guess I was mistaken to construe your statement in such a manner that relies on the ordinary connotations of words. Terribly sorry for looking for meaning where there's none to be found.

Your backhand dismissal of my arguments suggests that you either have no rebuttal or you're simply full of yourself, quite possibly both. Take your pick, pal.

Yeah, you were mistaken. I said that someone who had those impulses would be drawn to games like that, not that all people drawn to those games are violent. But I can see how you would read that into it, as pretty much all your posts seem to heavily focused on the negative of humanity.

I didn't really see an argument to dismiss, much less rebut. Pal.

 

[nahadef]

The attitude of this post I think was quite unnecessary.

Oh well. You think kanji is unnecessary too

 

[Tamayo]

What annoys me is that there is even more social stigma surrounding video games now that so many "journalists" have led their audiences to believe that there is a link between real-world violence and violence in video games even though such an assertion lacks scientific evidence of any sort. I also have to wonder why it is that these people ignore all other forms of media these days.

There has been talk about censoring and removing offensive content from video games, while no one seems to care about all of the violent and immoral things you see and hear in movies, television, music, literature, etc.

I used to play war strategy games a lot when I was younger. Now I play only first person shooter games.

Ah, what games do you play?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

so many "journalists" have led their audiences to believe that there is a link between real-world violence and violence in video games even though such an assertion lacks scientific evidence of any sort.

On the other hand, I am happy to hear that people are sometimes worried about violence and not droning on and on about the bad influence of sex for once!

Ah, what games do you play?

Lately Call of Duty Black Ops 2 (As much as I despise the glorification of black ops even if its only in name).. Before that COD 4 and 3 and Black Ops 1. Also Resistiance 1. All on PS3. How about you?

 

[Tamayo]

I've been playing Saints Row the Third for the past few weeks, and I'm getting better at head shots.

Console or PC? How do you like it? I'm actually a little surprised -- For whatever reason, I didn't think that some of you guys were into games.

Lately Call of Duty Black Ops 2 (As much as I despise the glorification of black ops even if its only in name).. Before that COD 4 and 3 and Black Ops 1. Also Resistiance 1. All on PS3. How about you?

Interesting! It's kind of a shame, we don't play any of the same games. At least as far as shooting games go, I play on my PC, so I'm into Battlefield 3 (Very soon to be 4) and Counterstrike. I'm also into Starcraft 2, (used to be into) World of Warcraft, Stepmania, and various Nintendo franchises.

I've been thinking of getting Black Ops 2 for PC on Steam some time when it goes on sale, but I'm not sure now that Battlefield 4 is so close to being released..



Anyhow, as for the topic at hand, I'd like to note that I don't play violent games for a violent release. I play them for the challenge, the competitive aspect, and the sheer fun. When I'm shooting people in Battlefield, I'm not doing it because I want to see bodies falling to the ground after I load them with bullets -- I do it simply because it's a competition between your own reflexes and the reflexes of the people you're playing with. I don't play shooting games to kill people any more than I play Stepmania to destroy/kill the arrows flying around on my screen. If there were some way to create a first-person shooter without ANY violence at all, I'd play it if there was challenge, competition and fun to be had.

It's a bit more difficult to justify this for games like Grand Theft Auto or Saints Row, but I still have to say that it isn't for the violence. I play games because they're either competitive as I mentioned above, or because I can do things in them that I could never do in real life, like flying a jet miles over a city, jumping out and parachuting down whenever I need to get somewhere.

 

[letianchen]

I used to be into starcraft and Skyrim alot. Also a couple years back in grade school everyone used to play runescape, I played it until grade 10 actually, never got bored of it for some reason. Nowadays don't play too much games just read manga and such lol.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Anyhow, as for the topic at hand, I'd like to note that I don't play violent games for a violent release. I play them for the challenge, the competitive aspect, and the sheer fun. When I'm shooting people in Battlefield, I'm not doing it because I want to see bodies falling to the ground after I load them with bullets -- I do it simply because it's a competition between your own reflexes and the reflexes of the people you're playing with. I don't play shooting games to kill people any more than I play Stepmania to destroy/kill the arrows flying around on my screen. If there were some way to create a first-person shooter without ANY violence at all, I'd play it if there was challenge, competition and fun to be had.

It's a bit more difficult to justify this for games like Grand Theft Auto or Saints Row, but I still have to say that it isn't for the violence. I play games because they're either competitive as I mentioned above, or because I can do things in them that I could never do in real life, like flying a jet miles over a city, jumping out and parachuting down whenever I need to get somewhere.

I am not sure that I believe you. And while I am not calling you a liar, what I think is happening is that you sincerely want to believe that. Of course I could be wrong about you as an individual, but I think most people are getting that kick subconsciously and may or may not be aware.

Have you ever seen a laser tag, BB survival game or paintball video game? It could be exactly the same in all challenge, accuracy and technical aspects as a gun/grenade/knife video game but without the death, violence, gore, horror, and blood. Would you like it as much? Would it sell?

 

[nahadef]

Console or PC? How do you like it? I'm actually a little surprised -- For whatever reason, I didn't think that some of you guys were into games.

I got a Wii, which I haven't played in the year and a half since I got a PS3. Zelda and Mario are my favorite games of all time, and I won't consider a Wii U unless a new Zelda comes out, but even then I may pass on it.

I use my PS3 about once a week, I'm genuinely busy. I got the $50 annual subscription to the Canadian PSPlus, and love the games on there. The best were Saints Row 3 and Infamous 2.

I like 3rd person games most, since I'm a little old for first person games, though I've played some. The games for PS3 I've finished:
Infamous 1 & 2
Batman Arkham 1 & 2
Mass Effect 2
Assassin's Creed 2
Katamari Damacy

There I some I'd play through and not finish though, like Red Dead Redemption or Burnout, just because they're so long, but I still enjoy them.

I'd have to say, it took me a while to get accustomed to 'enjoying' really bloody games. I remember playing GTA for the first time, and it was a little shocking, but I didn't really see much fun in shooting a cop in the head. Since they've been trying to get more and more real, it's just not something that interests me. Saints Row is the other way around though. It's so over the top, it's fun to run around the city naked wearing a cat head, shooting things with a super tank. But I have no real interest in blowing things up in real life.

 

[Tamayo]

I am not sure that I believe you. And while I am not calling you a liar, what I think is happening is that you sincerely want to believe that. Of course I could be wrong about you as an individual, but I think most people are getting that kick subconsciously and may or may not be aware.

Were you talking about the first or second part of that?

That definitely could be, but it seems to me that a lot of people think of video games as a good place to intentionally vent your violent feelings, and I'm sure they are, but I don't make a conscious decision to do it. What I mean is that the violence doesn't influence whether I play them or not, or how often I play specific games in comparison to others. I play games far too many games to really name a specific genre I play the most often, but I do play a "healthy" amount of games which come from a large variety of genres. Aside from the rudimentary differences (like between first-person controls, side-scroller controls, etc.), I feel like I play each game solely for the entertainment.

This'll change once Battlefield 4 comes out for sure, but lately, I've mainly been playing games like Bejeweled, Simcity, Stepmania, Recettear, and Portal 2 whenever I'm in the mood for a game. There's a bit of mild violence in Recettear and Portal, but not nearly enough to distract from what the games are really about. I'm honestly not totally sure if it's what you mean, but I definitely don't need a game to be violent to enjoy it.

Have you ever seen a laser tag, BB survival game or paintball video game? It could be exactly the same in all challenge, accuracy and technical aspects as a gun/grenade/knife video game but without the death, violence, gore, horror, and blood. Would you like it as much? Would it sell?

Well, I'm certainly sure that such a game would be laughed at, but I wouldn't dismiss it until I'd played it. In all honesty, I actually DID play a paintball game (Damnit, I forgot what it was called) with some friends a few years back and we managed to have a blast. I'm actually slightly surprised, though, that you mentioned these sorts of games since they are rooted in violence.


This is way later in the discussion that it should have been, but now I have to ask what we mean by "violent". Are we talking about games that revolve around killing, or are we talking about violent games in general? And on top of that, just how violent does a game have to be, to be considered a violent game? After all, I don't consider Super Mario World to be a violent game, but I could see how someone who's looking to assert that violence has too much presence in our video games might use it as an example of violence in our entertainment.

If we're talking about games with unnecessary, or even "obscene" amounts of violence and gore that depict people experiencing prolonged suffering, then I'd be a lot quicker to agree that we play them to satisfy our innate curiosity towards carnage. If we're just talking about any game with a moderate amount of violence (or even a lot), though, I can't say that I really care one way or the other while I'm playing.

Zelda and Mario are my favorite games of all time, and I won't consider a Wii U unless a new Zelda comes out, but even then I may pass on it.

Very nice! Did you hear about the HD release of Windwaker? I can see how a remake wouldn't be too enticing, but if you haven't played it, it's pretty popular among the Zelda franchise. I think they have a bundle (Nintendo just dropped the price for the Wii U) with a Wii U Elite and a copy of Zelda for 300 now. Also, New Super Mario Bros. U is pretty great. I'm really happy with the games so far, and especially with the lineup! Mario Kart 8 looks amazing.

I'd have to say, it took me a while to get accustomed to 'enjoying' really bloody games. I remember playing GTA for the first time, and it was a little shocking, but I didn't really see much fun in shooting a cop in the head. Since they've been trying to get more and more real, it's just not something that interests me. Saints Row is the other way around though. It's so over the top, it's fun to run around the city naked wearing a cat head, shooting things with a super tank. But I have no real interest in blowing things up in real life.

I'm not very old, but I do remember a time where any gore at all really stood out because it seemed so deliberate. Even the really violent games back in the days of the Super Nintendo and the N64 weren't bad by today's standards. I remember the first time I saw Mortal Kombat and I was truly shocked by it. I believe it was the first game I had ever seen with so much blood and gore.

What I think is happening is that the sort of gore that used to stand out and shock people (since gore wasn't really a thing) is sort of just expected nowadays since it lends to the realism of the setting. Back in the 8-bit days, doing much more than just making a few pixels disappear when you killed an enemy was going out of your way to make it violent. Nowadays, a game just feel weird if it lacks violence since realism is just a given with most games, given the amount of computing power we have.

By the way, I totally agree with you -- Saints Row is awesome, and really just about the perfect game for when you're bored but don't really want something specific. Honestly, I had more fun wandering around and getting into trouble in that game than I did with the actual storyline missions.

 

[nahadef]

Very nice! Did you hear about the HD release of Windwaker? I can see how a remake wouldn't be too enticing, but if you haven't played it, it's pretty popular among the Zelda franchise. I think they have a bundle (Nintendo just dropped the price for the Wii U) with a Wii U Elite and a copy of Zelda for 300 now. Also, New Super Mario Bros. U is pretty great. I'm really happy with the games so far, and especially with the lineup! Mario Kart 8 looks amazing.

I heard about Windwaker, but I've played through the Gamecube one twice (it was my first game I played in Japanese!). $300 is still way too much to play a rerelease. I think Nintendo just royally screwed themselves with Wii U, but that's another topic.

I loved Mario Galaxy, but I only somewhat enjoy the new sidescrollers that came out, that I played.

This is all off the main topic, but it goes to show that video games can't be simplified to a single style. Comics had similar demonization in the States in the 1950's (United States Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It is just the majority blaming a problem on a minority so they don't have to look at themselves.

Similarly, when someone says they don't play games, it sounds to me like they are saying they don't watch movies or listen to music. Games aren't a genre, but a form.

 

[letianchen]

people will be blaming porn next, if they havent already lol.

 

[BrianLewis]

I wonder if anyone has tested to see if a kid is more likely to use "nigger" on a regular basis after playing the campaign in GTA5. I think that sort of test is easily doable and could have a reflection on the debate about violence.

Personally, I don't think games cause violence in people. What I do think that GTA does is desensitize people towards random acts of violence, and that desensitizing a person is a step closer to being a violent person. It's still up to the individual to decide to be a violent person, but should we expose people to desensitizing elements in entertainment to make that an easier road for them?

You could make the comparison that all games are violent. However, your overlooking the fact that violence in GTA is often directed towards innocent bystanders. Games like COD or a typical hack and slash game almost always involve violence towards another violent faction. I don't see a problem with war games, I do see a problem with games that expose people to robbing an average Joe with the threat of death that is decided on a whim, or simply running over people on a sidewalk because the lanes were blocked with cars. I don't think people should be desensitized when it comes to causing harm to an innocent person.

Has anyone ever considered why there are no children walking about in GTA? Those that make the game, and those that buy the game are effectively saying that it's OK to gun down innocent people, or run people over on a sidewalk, but it wouldn't be OK if they were children? Why is that? Why would they not have children walking around if the random acts of violence had no reflection on reality?

Furthermore, parents are saying that it's OK for their children to play a game like this, and be the one performing these actions, but it would not be OK if their child did it to another kid. I just think it's strange how we draw our lines in this culture.

I've been thinking of getting Black Ops 2 for PC on Steam some time when it goes on sale, but I'm not sure now that Battlefield 4 is so close to being released..

Don't bother. It's the worst of the series.

 

[nahadef]

GTA is a game for adults. Parents letting their kids play aren't being good parents. Video game does not equal child's toy.

 

[Tamayo]

Has anyone ever considered why there are no children walking about in GTA? Those that make the game, and those that buy the game are effectively saying that it's OK to gun down innocent people, or run people over on a sidewalk, but it wouldn't be OK if they were children? Why is that? Why would they not have children walking around if the random acts of violence had no reflection on reality?

This is actually an issue that I'm particularly annoyed with in video games. There was a bit of controversy when Skyrim was released because players couldn't kill children. The developers pride their game on allowing the player absolute freedom of choice. If the player wants to charge in and personally attack the king of a providence, he can do so. If he wants to burn an innocent person walking down the road to death, he can do so. Hell, if he wants to just play the whole game through without killing people unnecessarily, he can do so.

When it comes to children, though, the developers are willing to compromise the "freedom" -- the axiom of their project -- by taking the choice to kill away. I'm not outraged by that sort of thing because I have the urge to murder children, but rather because the developers of these games not only give into, but actively take part in this violence-censoring hysteria that the media has blown way out of proportion. You know, there are actually people out there who believe it is a [b[scientific fact[/b] that there is a link between real-world violence and violence in video games, and it's because of all the hyper-sensitive idiots who use glittering generalities to IMPLY these assertions without having any realistic reason to.

GTA is a game for adults. Parents letting their kids play aren't being good parents. Video game does not equal child's toy.

My God, Nahadef, I love you, and I couldn't possibly agree more. You know what disgusts me? The fact that parents not only have no clue what they're buying for their children, but that they have the nerve to be shocked when they realize what it is, and they go and support these political movements that are trying to allow the government to raise their kids instead of them taking literally half of a second to look at the rating on the box.

What disgusts me even more is that the only thing people are so whole-heartedly going after is the video game industry instead of trying to censor movies, television, music, literature and so on as well. Honestly, what I think is going on is that the politicians, who are a couple generations old, still think that the "video games are for children" stigma still applies, and the the gaming industry as a whole is for children. I truly can't think of any other reason why this ridiculous movement exists.