Greetings all. Just saw this and though I should share.
The Huffington Post wrote:Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has introduced one of Congress' first pieces of legislation related to the tragedy in Newtown, Conn.: a bill to study the impact of violent video games on children.
....
Rockefeller's bill would direct the National Academy of Sciences to lead the investigation on video games' impact and submit a report on its findings within 18 months.
....
Other lawmakers, such as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), have also expressed support for scrutinizing the content of video games.
....
The legislation comes after reports suggested that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza may have played video games like "Call of Duty" and "Starcraft."
I thought the whole farce of video games making you some sort of nut was laid to rest years ago, no? What really bothers me is that so many networks have named SC2 specifically by name. I know its just a study, but the fact legislation against video games... Anti-Starcraft laws, what next?
Well, if the study is carried out correctly, I don't think we have anything to worry about. This is just Jay Rockefeller trying to score some cheap political points.
Gee, we played starcraft. Anyone feel like going on a murdering rampage? Instead of scrutinizing gun laws which is the most blatant issue, we're looking at video games which has been the subject of witch hunts for about a century now?
If the study is carried out correctly, we shouldn't be having any issues. Unfortunately, I'm not 100% sure that that will be the case, and even if it is carried out correctly, politicians everywhere will conveniently forget this survey ever existed.
On December 20 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote: Well, if the study is carried out correctly, I don't think we have anything to worry about.
Not necessarily. Chances are the study will find that video games desensitize people to violence (which we already know) and the media will leap to concluding that densensitized people are more likely to go on killing sprees.
If the US really wants to figure out what's causing them to have so many more mass shootings than other countries (per capita), they should start with factors that actually differ between US citizens and say, Canadian ones.
On December 20 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote: Well, if the study is carried out correctly, I don't think we have anything to worry about.
Not necessarily. Chances are the study will find that video games desensitize people to violence (which we already know) and the media will leap to concluding that densensitized people are more likely to go on killing sprees.
If the US really wants to figure out what's causing them to have so many more mass shootings than other countries (per capita), they should start with factors that actually differ between US citizens and say, Canadian ones.
This is true, but people have been blaming things they don't understand forever. These politicians (and scientists) have basically no understanding of gaming and will make vast and ridiculous conclusions based upon their findings in all likelihood. I'm not looking forward to the outcome of this.
I hate how people blame video games on everything. obesity, anger management, and now killing...... its a sad thing but i guess we cant do anything about it..
Assuming they come up with the insane conclusion that video games cause killing sprees, what kind of legislation could they even pass to combat violent video games that isn't ridiculously unconstitutional? They can't ban the games, they will never be able to enforce this. They can't ban their sale, we'll get them somewhere else. If they regulate what a video game's content must be before its even released, video game industry will just bail to another country and proceed as normal. At best they can try and enforce regulation on youths buying violent video games -- which also wont work.
On December 20 2012 05:41 GeNi wrote: I hate how people blame video games on everything. obesity, anger management, and now killing...... its a sad thing but i guess we cant do anything about it..
We could all pitch in to form a TL think tank that funds politicians who are against anti-video game laws. Thats about it though. I doubt this will get any traction.
On December 20 2012 05:41 GeNi wrote: I hate how people blame video games on everything. obesity, anger management, and now killing...... its a sad thing but i guess we cant do anything about it..
When a new form of media is introduced that will be the new scapegoat for social problems. It's been this way since forever.
On December 20 2012 05:35 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: If the study is carried out correctly, we shouldn't be having any issues. Unfortunately, I'm not 100% sure that that will be the case, and even if it is carried out correctly, politicians everywhere will conveniently forget this survey ever existed.
Sadly, this seems likely to prove absolutely correct.
One too many drone BBQs must have gotten to his head...
Starcraft is one of the least violent "desensitizing" games of strategy games with violent content out there. Why are they using speculation -- may have played -- as an impetus for this tired war on violent video games? To have effective, meaningful, and smart policies, we should wait for some time after calamities like this to be able to make clearheaded, rational, and informed discource and decisions.
Haha. Anyone with a brain should see what is going on. The youth is into video games and the internet mostly. And so they are losin tons of viewers. This is why they are blaming games and the internet for bad things. Just like Hitler blamed the jews to get whole germany on his side and then into the Reichswehr.
On December 20 2012 05:46 TerribleTrioJon wrote: One too many drone BBQs must have gotten to his head...
Starcraft is one of the least violent "desensitizing" games of strategy games with violent content out there. Why are they using speculation -- may have played -- as an impetus for this tired war on violent video games? To have effective, meaningful, and smart policies, we should wait for some time after calamities like this to be able to make clearheaded, rational, and informed discource and decisions.
They don't believe it themselves, Im pretty sure. Remember medieval days? You had to pay if you sinned. Meanwhile the priests used the money to get richer and richer. They just use recent events as a goal to reach their goals.
Playing violent video games doesn't desensitize you to actual violence though, it desensitizes you to fake violence. Saying that playing video games makes you more inclined to be violent is like saying playing NBA Jam will make you sweet at playing basketball.
You're not practicing basketball, you're not practicing to kill people, you're playing a simulation which doesn't even remotely stimulate your body in the same way that actually partaking in those activities would.
Maybe Wii Bowling is a better example, you're even going through the motions and by no means does Wii Bowling make you a better bowler nor does it even feel anything like bowling (<-- avid bowler). The stimulation, the experience, they're not the same thing and can't actually be compared.
This is ridicoulus. If you actually wanted proof of the effects of videogame, a long-term study would be the way to go. A 18-month study will not prove anything, since there is no chance of finding the cause that leads to violent people being drawn to videogames. There maybe a coherence between people prepared to do violence and people who play videogames, but there is no way of telling which caused which.
I do believe that unnecesary violence, especially in young ages, is a danger, but the way people who know nothing about new media (internet/games/...) go about things is just naive. When television came up eveybody was freaking out about violence on TV. Is that an Issue today? No, nobody cares about it anymore, because its "normal" for everyone. PC games are still somewhat of a niche, so people freak out about it unnecessarily.
I'm writing this from a prison cell so I will keep it short. When I was a young boy I used to play Super Mario Bros and from time to time Ikari Warriors, this led me to slaughter my family. Learn from this, do not play video games.
I have no problem with a bill designed to study the impacts of video games on children, but I do have a problem with the fact that countless parents ignore the ESRB ratings on games. How can this study even be conducted in good conscience? Are they going to sit a bunch of 10 year-olds down and make them played games that are rated M(17+) or even A(18+)? This is fucking bullshit. Little kids shouldn't be playing violent games because their parents should be buying them games that are appropriate for their age. Teenagers and adults older than 17 had better be the study group for this or else it might as well not be done at all.
On December 20 2012 05:53 Kich wrote: Playing violent video games doesn't desensitize you to actual violence though, it desensitizes you to fake violence. Saying that playing video games makes you more inclined to be violent is like saying playing NBA Jam will make you sweet at playing basketball.
You're not practicing basketball, you're not practicing to kill people, you're playing a simulation which doesn't even remotely stimulate your body in the same way that actually partaking in those activities would.
Maybe Wii Bowling is a better example, you're even going through the motions and by no means does Wii Bowling make you a better bowler nor does it even feel anything like bowling (<-- avid bowler). The stimulation, the experience, they're not the same thing and can't actually be compared.
I think that in some cases, playing violent videogames can actually make you more sensitive to actual violence.
Anyone who's ever played Red Orchestra 2 knows how gruesome the deaths can be. It's almost too realistic, between soldiers screaming for their mothers, and other soldiers choking on their own blood. It always freaks me out, anyways.
On December 20 2012 06:01 Nausea wrote: I'm writing this from a prison cell so I will keep it short. When I was a young boy I used to play Super Mario Bros and from time to time Ikari Warriors, this led me to slaughter my family. Learn from this, do not play video games.
No wonder you're in jail. Your defense was terrible.
In another news, it was also found that several violent crime offenders were peeing standing and eating a lot of chicken. New study to find out the effect of peeing standing up and eating chicken in violence.
Once again time for video games to be the target of the blame.
Should a 5 year old be playing Call of Duty? No, probably not a great idea. Is this something the government needs to look into? No: the brat's parents should be responsible enough to think "hmm, my kid is probably too young to be playing first person shoot-em-up games. Maybe we should pick a game that isn't rated "M"ature, and actually designed for his age group."
On December 20 2012 05:41 GeNi wrote: I hate how people blame video games on everything. obesity, anger management, and now killing...... its a sad thing but i guess we cant do anything about it..
yea, the violence thing is stupid but you're refuting a link between obesity and video games?
I had no idea that the guy played sc2, wow. Knowing this country we're more likely to see a weird ban on video games than a ban on lethal assault weapons.
On December 20 2012 05:41 GeNi wrote: I hate how people blame video games on everything. obesity, anger management, and now killing...... its a sad thing but i guess we cant do anything about it..
yea, the violence thing is stupid but you're refuting a link between obesity and video games?
Most of my friends and I play video games a lot and none of us are fat or even overweight. We all did multiple sports in high school and maintain healthy lifestyles in college. From my experience I don't see any link between obesity and video games, anymore than there is a link between driving cars and obesity, watching tv and obesity, ect.
On December 20 2012 05:41 GeNi wrote: I hate how people blame video games on everything. obesity, anger management, and now killing...... its a sad thing but i guess we cant do anything about it..
yea, the violence thing is stupid but you're refuting a link between obesity and video games?
Yeah, it's not Doritos and beer that makes you fat, it's all the starcraft playing
On December 20 2012 06:12 J_Slim wrote: Once again time for video games to be the target of the blame.
Should a 5 year old be playing Call of Duty? No, probably not a great idea. Is this something the government needs to look into? No: the brat's parents should be responsible enough to think "hmm, my kid is probably too young to be playing first person shoot-em-up games. Maybe we should pick a game that isn't rated "M"ature, and actually designed for his age group."
I started playing Halo at 5 iirc.
But I agree with you, we shouldn't have laws restricting games to minors, parents should do their job and know when their kid is finally ready to start playing violent games, or scale up the violence (say, Star Wars or Final Fantasy versus Doom or CoD)
There needs to be a way to officially regulate videogames and the ages they are suitable for, it shouldn't all be up to parents. Being a parent doesn't automatically let you know what effect things will have on your child. It doesn't need to be laws, but shops not selling games to certain age groups is perfectly acceptable.
Jay Rockefeller probably doesnt know the the US Army/Navy actually helps develop some of those FPS games. The SOCOM series immediately comes to mind.
Jay Rockefeller is also vocally supportive of pretty much anything that would curtail freedom on the internet. Hes a backwards old fuck. Im alot more worried about the effect Jay Rockefeller has on society than that of video games. We should commission a study....
On December 20 2012 06:28 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote: There needs to be a way to officially regulate videogames and the ages they are suitable for, it shouldn't all be up to parents. Being a parent doesn't automatically let you know what effect things will have on your child. It doesn't need to be laws, but shops not selling games to certain age groups is perfectly acceptable.
They already do this. Parents are the ones who buy it. You cannot buy M rated games (from GameStop at least) unless you are 18 I believe.
We can all agree that violence in video games doesn't convince most people to become mass murderers, but there is evidence that it makes people generally more aggressive. There are several books about the function of mirror neurons and the correlation of all human behavior to external influences, which mentions a study finding a direct correlation between violent behavior and violent video games. This link gives has an introduction towards the end to what I'm referring to: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mirror-neuron-revolut I still generally agree with the notion that there wouldn't be an issue if people followed the ESRB ratings.
On December 20 2012 05:29 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Gee, we played starcraft. Anyone feel like going on a murdering rampage? Instead of scrutinizing gun laws which is the most blatant issue, we're looking at video games which has been the subject of witch hunts for about a century now?
Speaking of cheap political points this is just low level grandstanding. There would have been a ton more backlash if this was introduced into the house by republicans. that being said it won't get though the house for equally political reasons.
This is a shameless political co-opting of yet another one of our national tragedies. I remember one article said something I think about a friend who knew him in 2008 and said he played some Brood War. Well, that's quite a causal relationship. He probably also ate a few hotdogs in his life. I just hope the NAS don't return a study that's been politically contaminated.
This whole thing just makes me so sick. This is the type of shit that makes me loathe myself for being an american. I cannot believe that starcraft would get dragged into this type of shit... Has anyone ever played manhunt before??? In that game the whole point of the game is to execute people in creative ways, and the more brutally you execute people the more points you get. The first weapon you get in that game is a glass shard, followed by a plastic bag. It is a very dark gruesome game where the only thing that keeps you from just being a cold blooded serial killer is the fact that your enemies are armed, and not defenseless. (although the way the game plays out they basically are defenseless)
Another great prospect is state of emergency. a crazy taxi like game where you start riots by causing destruction and mayhem, your score increases based on the amount of wrath and destruction you bring upon innocent bystanders and fellow rioters.
Can anyone please explain to me how starcraft a game that is basically just a sci fi movie that is a strategy game is anything like games like i mentioned, or even like CoD (or any FPS where you actually look down the sight of a gun and kill people) What makes playing starcraft any more desensitizing different than watching starship troopers.
On December 20 2012 06:28 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote: There needs to be a way to officially regulate videogames and the ages they are suitable for, it shouldn't all be up to parents. Being a parent doesn't automatically let you know what effect things will have on your child. It doesn't need to be laws, but shops not selling games to certain age groups is perfectly acceptable.
As far as I know most places do that already. It's not that the stores are selling Mature games to 8 year olds... they're selling it to the parent's of an 8 year old who then give it to him. All video games have a rating, just like movies. It's not hard to find out what a game is rated, and why.
Blood and Gore. Intense Violence. Strong Language.
Any one of those should be a flag for the parent.
Maybe my mom was strange, but I'm almost 30, and I didn't get to play Mortal Kombat while growing up. And the graphics then were *nothing* compared to what we have now. As a gamer, I plan on playing video games pretty much forever, but I'll definitely be dictating what games my kids can and cannot play.
On December 20 2012 06:28 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote: There needs to be a way to officially regulate videogames and the ages they are suitable for, it shouldn't all be up to parents. Being a parent doesn't automatically let you know what effect things will have on your child. It doesn't need to be laws, but shops not selling games to certain age groups is perfectly acceptable.
They already do this. Parents are the ones who buy it. You cannot buy M rated games (from GameStop at least) unless you are 18 I believe.
The ESRB is a entity internal to the game industry. However long ago, the game industry was afraid that the government would start regulating games, so they got preemptive about it so that they could assign ratings rather than some bureaucrat. There is no legal obligation on the retailers part to only sell "M" games to adults.
That being said, you will be very hard pressed to find a store that will sell those games to minors. While there would be no effective difference between a government or an industry run ESRB (other than the chance that the government would label games poorly), it's easy to get up on a soap box and say "There is no government regulation on video games! We're letting them rape our children unimpeded!!!"
On December 20 2012 06:28 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote: There needs to be a way to officially regulate videogames and the ages they are suitable for, it shouldn't all be up to parents. Being a parent doesn't automatically let you know what effect things will have on your child. It doesn't need to be laws, but shops not selling games to certain age groups is perfectly acceptable.
They already do this. Parents are the ones who buy it. You cannot buy M rated games (from GameStop at least) unless you are 18 I believe.
True news. Wal-Mart won't even carry M-rated games. Or, at least, they've been threatening to stop carrying them for a while.
Though I COMPLETELY disagree with the idea that the duty should not rest on the parents. Parents have gotten shit lazy in the current age, and blame everyone else for their shitty parenting. It's not Lady Gaga's fault 10 year olds are listening to her blatantly sexualized party music. It's the parents who buy the damn CDs or let their children listen to a radio without supervision.
It's the same thing with children on the internet. Britain recently held an inquiry on whether or not all porn should be blocked by internet providers, and anyone who wanted to watch porn had to specifically request the content from their ISP. Excuse me? So parents are so goddamned lazy now that they can't even watch what their 12 year old is accessing on the internet? A basic content control block will control a kid until he's 14 or so. After that you've gotta, you know, be a parent.
Wasn't there already a study that showed the exact opposite of what they were hoping for like a few years ago? Also, wasn't there a study that showed that video games actually helped people?
Eh, video games really offer no benefit. Not nearly as constructive as reading, writing, sports, exercise, or the arts. And games like Chess are way more stimulating than what most games kids play today.
Should ANY parent be ok with their child playing Call of Duty? Skillessly and mindlessly shooting things for hours? Yet it's the most popular game on the market. Video games are one of the most worthless and non constructive hobbies and are very addicting.
While the study won't find any link to violence I'm sure, at least it's bringing scrutinizing eyes to Video games.
On December 20 2012 06:35 jinorazi wrote: i sure hope the research shuts that guy up, i think the research should be done by multiple sources just in case.
Lol multiple sources of research, see thats not how things work in america. Whats going to happen instead is the organizations funding this guys organization are going to put up millions of dollars to lobby to try and prevent other people from conducting similar research. This way the findings will be the only evidence until all the legal hoops are jumped through (years later) when other studies will test these findings and methods. This makes it perfect to get the public in an uproar and try and use the findings to try and get some crazy bill passed.
The craziest thing about the bill they will try and pass though is that the "video game legislation" will just be stamped at the bottom of a bill that is actually meaningful in an attempt to "pork-barrel" it into passing.
This is the crown jewel of world government that is american "democracy" Its too bad that there are so many countries in the world who have never even had a taste of wonderful democracy.
On December 20 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote: Well, if the study is carried out correctly, I don't think we have anything to worry about. This is just Jay Rockefeller trying to score some cheap political points.
pretty much nailed it. This is completely asinine and absurd we all know this but it will be interesting to see what the biast results come out to be.
These constant witch hunts against my main hobby is more likely to make me go crazy than the actual hobby itself.
You want to see violence? You don't need videogames. -Movies -TV Series (both real and cartoon) -Media news : always reporting on violent crimes, wars, etc. -Living (going to a bar, walking a bad street at night; you're likely to see real violence in plenty of places). -Contact sports -History books (tons of depraved things to learn about!) or documentaries -Anything related to hunting, fishing, and the animal kingdom or even just insects when you see a fly trapped in a cobweb.
Seriously, there's violence at every point of our life. And that's just violent things (didn't include the internet as a whole but obviously it's huge too) --- if you want to talk about every depraved thing that can be seen or heard in life, that could make a person snap, then the list is too huge to count.
I'm not saying video games have no effect on the human mind. It's just freaking pointless to demonize them all things considered. It's a form of entertainment enjoyed by millions of people, and a few people who did something insane who just happened to enjoy that form of entertainment (bet they watched sports, tv, or anything else I listed too as well!) don't make everyone who play videogames lunatics.
I can't believe in this day and age we are still seeing this crap on the news. It's fucking shameful.
On December 20 2012 05:41 GeNi wrote: I hate how people blame video games on everything. obesity, anger management, and now killing...... its a sad thing but i guess we cant do anything about it..
yea, the violence thing is stupid but you're refuting a link between obesity and video games?
Most of my friends and I play video games a lot and none of us are fat or even overweight. We all did multiple sports in high school and maintain healthy lifestyles in college. From my experience I don't see any link between obesity and video games, anymore than there is a link between driving cars and obesity, watching tv and obesity, ect.
Well while you were playing sports you were obviously not paying attention in science class. Your personal experiences don't outweigh decades of research proving a link. And there is a link between the amount of time spent watching TV and obesity(Many of these studies consider time spent watching TV and time spent playing video games the same).
Obviously video games do not actively make you gain weight, but they encourage a sedentary lifestyle and are associated with poor food choices(Look at MLGs advertisers).
how far can this go? if theyre talking about violence. then sc2 should be last on the list compared to many other games out there. i think if anything. all those fps games would be banned first b4 they even touch sc2.
This is fucking pathetic. I guess watching violent movies, listening to violent songs, and watching TV that has violence leads to mass murders as well?
On December 20 2012 06:51 Kurr wrote: These constant witch hunts against my main hobby is more likely to make me go crazy than the actual hobby itself.
You want to see violence? You don't need videogames. -Movies -TV Series (both real and cartoon) -Media news : always reporting on violent crimes, wars, etc. -Living (going to a bar, walking a bad street at night; you're likely to see real violence in plenty of places). -Contact sports -History books (tons of depraved things to learn about!) or documentaries -Anything related to hunting, fishing, and the animal kingdom or even just insects when you see a fly trapped in a cobweb.
Seriously, there's violence at every point of our life. And that's just violent things (didn't include the internet as a whole but obviously it's huge too) --- if you want to talk about every depraved thing that can be seen or heard in life, that could make a person snap, then the list is too huge to count.
I'm not saying video games have no effect on the human mind. It's just freaking pointless to demonize them all things considered. It's a form of entertainment enjoyed by millions of people, and a few people who did something insane who just happened to enjoy that form of entertainment (bet they watched sports, tv, or anything else I listed too as well!) don't make everyone who play videogames lunatics.
I can't believe in this day and age we are still seeing this crap on the news. It's fucking shameful.
yep, pretty much this...
I'd also like to see graphs of how many fights happened at every e-sports event of 2012 (should be 0, no?) and this for Soccer, Hockey etc... also maybe people that have died(no speculations, cases that have been proven) at e-sports event or as a result of gaming compared to Soccer etc...
Starcraft does cause violence, look at the amount of shooting deaths in S korea, a country that played BW religiously for the last 10 years!! Oh wait...
Nothing, but wasted time and money, will come out of any study on violence and video games. There have been plenty in the past, im sure, since after every single act of violence ever reported the media always goes striaght to video games and music and movies.
No need to worry about anything, they will always fail in their endevors, as they always have
So they'll link a tragedy with Starcraft, but they won't say how there's a whole industry built around this game and how the growth of the eSports scene has been exponential? Fantastic.
On December 20 2012 07:21 ticklishmusic wrote: Crazy gunmen are also known to eat food, breathe air and occasionally poop.
Most crazy gunmen are known to have played Chess. Statistical evidence may suggest the violence in Chess could attract individuals who feel they are cast out by society, and thus feel the need to lash out violently. In Chess the player commands an army that must give their lives to satisfy a megalomaniacal agenda that they have no say in. Individuals who play Chess channel their feelings of hatred for society into the game, and the game brainwashes them to believe they can satisfy their violent urges by killing innocent people.
On December 20 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote: Well, if the study is carried out correctly, I don't think we have anything to worry about. This is just Jay Rockefeller trying to score some cheap political points.
Basically.
It's a waste of tax payer money on top of being just a cheap political grab. If this actually passes I'll be surprised.
This means SC(2) is such a big thing, even old conservative politicans heard something about it? Reminds me back to the time where in germany games where declared to be responsible of these school schooting tragedies and one of these game was boondock saints....
Please, never tell politicans that you can play games backwards, like rock music back in the 80's and that they become really evil this way, like rock music. :p
On December 20 2012 05:29 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Gee, we played starcraft. Anyone feel like going on a murdering rampage? Instead of scrutinizing gun laws which is the most blatant issue, we're looking at video games which has been the subject of witch hunts for about a century now?
Well yeah, the nra has more money to donate to candidates. This is getting old, but people want something to blame other than guns.
Are they that desperate to find something to point their fingers at? Video game violence has been studied countless times and it's been conclusive that they don't cause people to go on killing rampages.
On December 20 2012 07:36 dAPhREAk wrote: glad to see congress has excess funds to support a waste of time.
They probably just printed off a bunch of fresh $$.
I definitely think that there is a huge correlation between vidya games and the murderins. Between the vidya games, the news, vielant teleevision and the gays I don't know how everyone in society isn't a serial killer. derrr
If video games caused people to go on murdering rampages, the world would already be destroyed. Since that hasn't happened yet, anyone who can think for themselves for 5 seconds would know this is pointless. For some reason they need something to blame for Lanza killing children. It's the same shit as blaming Marilyn Manson for causing Columbine.
Socially isolated people tend to retreat to hobbies they can play alone, and gaming happens to be one of them.
So, who's ready for some serious research on the impact of Chess vs yourself on your sanity?
Beware! Masturbation will be the next target. They will surely find a link between spree killings and masturbation; with most or all of the culprits being men, it's only a matter of time (not saying women don't "pleasure" themselves).
if video games impacted people that much, we would have thousands of shootings every day, all carried out by gamers.... we don't. Study done.
plus Starcraft is a war simulation, same as CoD... they aren't about randomly shooting people for no reason. They tried to blame this stuff on GTA for years, until it became apparent it wasn't the case. Now they are just moving to different games.
Gaming makes u less likely to do something like this cause you can take out your fucked up frustrations in a safe environment. I do this whenever I get angry with my gf.... jump on Saints Row 3 and fuck shit up without care for who or what i blow up, shoot, knife or otherwise kill in some nasty and bloody fashion. After 10 minutes I feel great and have no desire to hurt anyone.
On December 20 2012 07:54 HoboJoe20 wrote: I wish it would be an investigation into violence from media ... and then become shocked and surprised when the News comes as a big surprise..
yea I guess there's a stigma about video games that makes it a more palatable target. try and even attempt to do research into media in general and see how fast lobbies come barreling down... + good luck trying to get favorable coverage next election cycle
WHY ARE PEOPLE SO DUMB? Why do I still even get surprised by this?! Is it because I still have hope in humanity? Being sleep deprived feels so good sometimes :DDDDDDDDDDD
I can in some ways understand that you would think violent video games could make kids more violent... but SC? The violence in sc is about as sublimated as in chess...
I wouldn't be opposed to a proper study on the effect of video games on children or people. As it was mentioned before, we just have to hope that the study is carried on properly and they'll find out that games are harmless but better taken in moderation.
Doesn't this exact same conversation come up every time there's a shooting?
"Newsflash: This quiet teenage boy played VIDEO GAMES. Can you believe it?"
Also I'm not even sure why they mentioned Starcraft in particular. It seems like the last game to promote violence in young people, and hell, the name doesn't even sound menacing.
You know, I'd really like it if, every time somebody contributed something positive to society like donating millions of dollars to charity or winning a Nobel Prize, they wrote a report that said, "We went through this man's belongings and found a Diablo 3 box! Playing video games must make you a successful genius!"
Watching the garbage on television is probably worse for a child than an FPS. They should just ban everything and make playing outside compulsory. Vote MDJ for WA Senator 2016
Control, control, control. Until people stop arguing the pragmatic (that video games don't encourage violent behavior) and start arguing the idealistic (the purpose of government is not to decide what its citizens can and cannot view/read/believe/think), freedom will always lose.
Look at Canada and the US. Pretty much same types of entertainment enjoyed by both societies at practically the same percentages. Yet you don't see mass killings by the Canadians. The people who commit those types of acts might get some ideas from video games but then again they could get the same ideas reading certain books or watching certain movies. All about Universal Healthcare in the US and making sure everyone has access from the day they are born to the day they die to catch anything that is abnormal and try to treat it. We can't be surprised when we neglect the poor or mentally unstable and then they shoot up "normal" people. We reap what we sow.
Some politicians are so stupid on both sides this is something only the most stupid conservative and most controlling democrats do. They have time to study whether 10 years for SC and CSS makes me want to kill people but not time to fix the economy or the debt. The fucking country.
People need to realize that the fact that a killer playing violent video games is not a cause, its a correlation. This person is obviously messed up and desensitized to violence as it is, so he plays violent video games. The video games did not cause him to shoot up an elementary school. If they did, we would have a hell of a lot more school shootings then we already do. And of all the games to label a culprit, Starcraft? Really? Maybe Grand Theft Auto or some of those ridiculously bloody games out there but blaming Starcraft is a ridiculous notion. I don't get it. I play Starcraft all of the time and I've never had any inkling to go shoot up a school. The only thing I've wanted to do recently is shoot myself from watching all of the American media's ridiculous coverage and explanations of the event.
On December 20 2012 09:10 PiPoGevy wrote: Its the parents fault, it always is
That's exactly as narrow minded and simplistic as most other attempts of explaing such tragedy. Shame on you, it's a shame to read some comment like that on a quality forum.
On December 20 2012 05:29 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Gee, we played starcraft. Anyone feel like going on a murdering rampage? Instead of scrutinizing gun laws which is the most blatant issue, we're looking at video games which has been the subject of witch hunts for about a century now?
On December 20 2012 05:41 GeNi wrote: I hate how people blame video games on everything. obesity, anger management, and now killing...... its a sad thing but i guess we cant do anything about it..
yea, the violence thing is stupid but you're refuting a link between obesity and video games?
Most of my friends and I play video games a lot and none of us are fat or even overweight. We all did multiple sports in high school and maintain healthy lifestyles in college. From my experience I don't see any link between obesity and video games, anymore than there is a link between driving cars and obesity, watching tv and obesity, ect.
There can be a general weak correlation between video games and obesity. But competitive video games aimed at multiplayer like SC are a very different thing. Generally I have noticed people who are into it are also into sports, which has a reverse correlation with obesity. Look at the progamers.
On December 20 2012 05:29 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Gee, we played starcraft. Anyone feel like going on a murdering rampage? Instead of scrutinizing gun laws which is the most blatant issue, we're looking at video games which has been the subject of witch hunts for about a century now?
On December 20 2012 09:27 Darkhoarse wrote: This picture is a pretty good demonstration of why the argument that violent video games is the cause is ridiculous.
is there a similar graph for just murders and video game consumption? because guns are illegal in many countries on that list.
I once killed a man over a ladder match. This game causes unbridled rage and must be stopped in its tracks before it devastates our youth. ... Hopefully the study is conducted correctly and nothing changes
i think this is probably the best thing that could have happened. think about it. they're giving the entire investigation to the national academy of sciences, which is far better than if they would have made a congressional panel or giving it to the house science committee (fyi several members of the house science committee don't believe in climate change or pregnancy through rape, (remember todd akin? legitimate rape guy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_akin#Committee_assignments))
all in all, we knew it would take an official government report to once and for all end the 'debate' on whether video games make you crazy or not, and i think this report has the best likelihood of coming back in our favour of any that were due to come out eventually. We knew this was coming, and we knew all along that all we needed was just a fair trial, and i think this is actually a good thing, as once the report is finished it will end this debate once and for all, and we won't have to deal with this shit every time someone goes crazy.
also lol that while this is going on r/gaming only cares about WarZ being taken off steam.
On December 20 2012 09:27 Darkhoarse wrote: This picture is a pretty good demonstration of why the argument that violent video games is the cause is ridiculous.
did you get the data and run a t-test failing to reject the null hypothesis that the slope is 0? you can't just look at a picture lol.
The formula for these 'moral critics' is to take all the behaviors the perpetrator engaged in, and then subtract any behavior they themselves engage in, and the remaining behaviors are destroying the fabric of society.
You know, if the Bible (especially OId Testament) were made into a video game, it would one of the most violent and bloodiest games available-- I wonder what these politicans would think if their kids were playing that instead of Call of Duty. They'd probably be fine with it because their whole anti-gaming argument is based on hypocritical and close-minded hogwash.
On December 20 2012 09:27 Darkhoarse wrote: This picture is a pretty good demonstration of why the argument that violent video games is the cause is ridiculous.
did you get the data and run a t-test failing to reject the null hypothesis that the slope is 0? you can't just look at a picture lol.
LOLOL i just learned this shit in my research methods class
OT: what the fuck, even if nothing comes out of this the fact that 'starcraft' is even mentioned will hurt the growth of e-sports :[
This pisses me off. Ive played FPS games for 6 years and Starcraft for nearly 2 years. Video games are my hobby and eSports is more important than real sports to me. To be honest, I think about video games and play more than is healthy and Ive never even had a speeding ticket, let alone even think of murdering someone.
I hate the media and I hope this guy never gets reelected.
On December 20 2012 08:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: games like SC and CoD, I don't think should be regulated. games like GTA should be straight up banned.
Yeah u are correct, we should ask for freedom with it suits us and take it away from everybody else.
we limit freedoms all the time, and in my personal opinion GTA is a horrible game with a horrible premise that doesn't deserve the protection of free speech. you can argue the slippery slope, and I'll even say that in this instance it is valid, but at the same time, I don't think we have to go down the slippery slope.
CoD and SC have violence, yes, but the violence is consequential, not random. in CoD you are a soldier in battle, in SC you control soldiers in battle. in GTA you are a criminal thug and the whole point of the game is to kill innocent people and cops and engage in other sickening behavior.
On December 20 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote: Well, if the study is carried out correctly, I don't think we have anything to worry about. This is just Jay Rockefeller trying to score some cheap political points.
I would actually be interested in what a properly carried out (and directed) study would show about video games and our brains in general. 18 months though....far as I remember that is a bit short to be anywhere near conclusive.
Regardless, this is just more rabble-rousing from the bully pulpit. Starcraft or any other video game isn't to blame. People are.
On December 20 2012 08:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: games like SC and CoD, I don't think should be regulated. games like GTA should be straight up banned.
Yeah u are correct, we should ask for freedom with it suits us and take it away from everybody else.
we limit freedoms all the time, and in my personal opinion GTA is a horrible game with a horrible premise that doesn't deserve the protection of free speech. you can argue the slippery slope, and I'll even say that in this instance it is valid, but at the same time, I don't think we have to go down the slippery slope.
CoD and SC have violence, yes, but the violence is consequential, not random. in CoD you are a soldier in battle, in SC you control soldiers in battle. in GTA you are a criminal thug and the whole point of the game is to kill innocent people and cops and engage in other sickening behavior.
Does the distinction between consequential and random violence in video games have any credible science behind a discussion of its influence? Because your going to have an immensely difficult time disproving the notion that games like GTA and others actually help and provide an outlet for individuals who would otherwise resort to real world expressions of their misanthropy.
On December 20 2012 08:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: games like SC and CoD, I don't think should be regulated. games like GTA should be straight up banned.
Yeah u are correct, we should ask for freedom with it suits us and take it away from everybody else.
we limit freedoms all the time, and in my personal opinion GTA is a horrible game with a horrible premise that doesn't deserve the protection of free speech. you can argue the slippery slope, and I'll even say that in this instance it is valid, but at the same time, I don't think we have to go down the slippery slope.
CoD and SC have violence, yes, but the violence is consequential, not random. in CoD you are a soldier in battle, in SC you control soldiers in battle. in GTA you are a criminal thug and the whole point of the game is to kill innocent people and cops and engage in other sickening behavior.
Does the distinction between consequential and random violence in video games have any credible science behind a discussion of its influence? Because your going to have an immensely difficult time disproving the notion that games like GTA and others actually help and provide an outlet for individuals who would otherwise resort to real world expressions of their misanthropy.
I would have only as difficult (and perhaps less) a time as you would have trying to provide support for the notion that acting out a violent fantasy in the virtual world in some way prevents violent behavior in the real world.
I would like to see a comprehensive study on the effect of violence and depravity in our media on our brains and behaviors.
On December 20 2012 10:18 sc2superfan101 wrote: CoD and SC have violence, yes, but the violence is consequential, not random. in CoD you are a soldier in battle, in SC you control soldiers in battle. in GTA you are a criminal thug and the whole point of the game is to kill innocent people and cops and engage in other sickening behavior.
On December 20 2012 10:18 sc2superfan101 wrote: CoD and SC have violence, yes, but the violence is consequential, not random. in CoD you are a soldier in battle, in SC you control soldiers in battle. in GTA you are a criminal thug and the whole point of the game is to kill innocent people and cops and engage in other sickening behavior.
On December 20 2012 08:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: games like SC and CoD, I don't think should be regulated. games like GTA should be straight up banned.
Yeah u are correct, we should ask for freedom with it suits us and take it away from everybody else.
we limit freedoms all the time, and in my personal opinion GTA is a horrible game with a horrible premise that doesn't deserve the protection of free speech. you can argue the slippery slope, and I'll even say that in this instance it is valid, but at the same time, I don't think we have to go down the slippery slope.
CoD and SC have violence, yes, but the violence is consequential, not random. in CoD you are a soldier in battle, in SC you control soldiers in battle. in GTA you are a criminal thug and the whole point of the game is to kill innocent people and cops and engage in other sickening behavior.
Does the distinction between consequential and random violence in video games have any credible science behind a discussion of its influence? Because your going to have an immensely difficult time disproving the notion that games like GTA and others actually help and provide an outlet for individuals who would otherwise resort to real world expressions of their misanthropy.
I would have only as difficult (and perhaps less) a time as you would have trying to provide support for the notion that acting out a violent fantasy in the virtual world in some way prevents violent behavior in the real world.
I would like to see a comprehensive study on the effect of violence and depravity in our media on our brains and behaviors.
Well yeah, that's precisely my point. At this point, we really cannot qualify the influence of video games on human behavior with any degree of specificity, issues like the chicken or the egg problem come to mind immediately. I definitely think we need to research and seek to better understand the psychological effects of video games, but our understanding at this moment makes legislation or any "line in the sand" so to speak on the topic seem incredibly suspect. So yeah, we more or less agree.
Video games = easy target for politicians trying to get easy points with voters. Makes it seem like they want to solve a 'problem' (recent school shootings). Video games just happen to be something a lot of older people discriminate against, so pinpointing it as a cause makes sense for them.
On December 20 2012 10:18 sc2superfan101 wrote: CoD and SC have violence, yes, but the violence is consequential, not random. in CoD you are a soldier in battle, in SC you control soldiers in battle. in GTA you are a criminal thug and the whole point of the game is to kill innocent people and cops and engage in other sickening behavior.
Hey man, larvae are innocent too.
Next thing you know cancelling larvae is equivalent to abortion... but I digress.
The 'solution' is always tyranny. Take away more of our autonomy and freedom - politicians....perhaps their power should be stricken from them entirely. I can't stand demagogues. Always using a particular situation to further their agenda's and power. Grab their guns they say. Disarm them they say. Take away their video games they say. Here, indulge in some psychotropic drugs that the FDA shits out over and over. Take away your vitamins and other natural cures. Bunch of Fascist pigs the lot of them. I'll pass on what they're selling.
On December 20 2012 11:02 Wegandi wrote: The 'solution' is always tyranny. Take away more of our autonomy and freedom - politicians....perhaps their power should be stricken from them entirely. I can't stand demagogues. Always using a particular situation to further their agenda's and power. Grab their guns they say. Disarm them they say. Take away their video games they say. Here, indulge in some psychotropic drugs that the FDA shits out over and over. Take away your vitamins and other natural cures. Bunch of Fascist pigs the lot of them. I'll pass on what they're selling.
I think there needs to be more defined ratings. I remember trying to buy Fable and it was rated M for Sex/Violence/Drug use. Meanwhile GTA has the exact same rating and the same reasons Sex/Violence/Drugs. I think there needs to be a step between Teen/Mature.
On December 20 2012 11:04 tokicheese wrote: I think there needs to be more defined ratings. I remember trying to buy Fable and it was rated M for Sex/Violence/Drug use. Meanwhile GTA has the exact same rating and the same reasons Sex/Violence/Drugs. I think there needs to be a step between Teen/Mature.
Fable has sex and drugs in it? Why on gods earth is Fable in the same category as GTA where the whole purpose is to kill cops and do criminal activities for your gang lol.
Someone should do a study on whether games keep young people out of trouble by giving them something to do during their free time. I wasn't allowed to have video games until I was 16. The amount of stupid shit I did with friends prior to having video games was insurmountable compared to what I did after I had access to them.
On December 20 2012 11:04 tokicheese wrote: I think there needs to be more defined ratings. I remember trying to buy Fable and it was rated M for Sex/Violence/Drug use. Meanwhile GTA has the exact same rating and the same reasons Sex/Violence/Drugs. I think there needs to be a step between Teen/Mature.
Fable has sex and drugs in it? Why on gods earth is Fable in the same category as GTA where the whole purpose is to kill cops and do criminal activities for your gang lol.
You can massacre entire towns in Fable. It's the easiest (only?) way to buy up all the property.
On December 20 2012 05:29 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Gee, we played starcraft. Anyone feel like going on a murdering rampage? Instead of scrutinizing gun laws which is the most blatant issue, we're looking at video games which has been the subject of witch hunts for about a century now?
No murder, but I really wouldn't be sad if whoever started this idiotic trend of blaming video games and entertainment for behavior died a few times more than the average. Personally, i'll just watch who supports this sort of garbage and never vote for them again.
On December 20 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote: Well, if the study is carried out correctly, I don't think we have anything to worry about. This is just Jay Rockefeller trying to score some cheap political points.
Unfortunately, we not not only have the study being carried out correctly, we also need media to report on it correctly. :/
Most likely the study will find a correlation, but not being able to say much on what causes what. Even assuming the study is done and communicated to the journalists in an unbiased way, all the journalists (and editors!) will hear is "people playing video games are overrepresented among murderers", and we will be back to the usual articles....
I don't think this prejudice against gamers will end until gaming is more widespread and accepted. In a few decades almost everyone (also the politicians), except the very oldest ones maybe, will have played computer games or had brothers/close friends that played computer. I'd say that there is no real point to start huge storms over this, just continue to let mainstream media know that we play computer games, we are having fun doing it, we are perfectly normal people, and come play with us and you'll see! + Show Spoiler +
And if you don't play with us, I'll kill you!!!! > : (
Speaking as a person who actually does conduct video game research for a living, I actually have something productive to add to this discussion.
There is a link between aggression and violent video games. Technically. The studies that find that kind of link use massive sample sizes to gather enough statistical significance to demonstrate the link because the effect size is minuscule. For example, if you don't play a violent game and then get tested for aggression you might score a 2 out of 5. After playing such a game you might score a 2.05 out of 5. (not actual numbers, but you get the idea)
The question, really, is whether or not the person reading the report is intelligent enough to recognize the difference between "statistical significance" and "practical significance". All that is to say that if the technologically-and-scientifically-retarded US Congress goes looking for reasons to condemn SC2, they'll find them. Expect a media circus in 18 months.
On December 20 2012 12:33 titanicnewbie wrote: Speaking as a person who actually does conduct video game research for a living, I actually have something productive to add to this discussion.
There is a link between aggression and violent video games. Technically. The studies that find that kind of link use massive sample sizes to gather enough statistical significance to demonstrate the link because the effect size is minuscule. For example, if you don't play a violent game and then get tested for aggression you might score a 2 out of 5. After playing such a game you might score a 2.05 out of 5. (not actual numbers, but you get the idea)
The question, really, is whether or not the person reading the report is intelligent enough to recognize the difference between "statistical significance" and "practical significance". All that is to say that if the technologically-and-scientifically-retarded US Congress goes looking for reasons to condemn SC2, they'll find them. Expect a media circus in 18 months.
Surprised that you don't mention correlation vs causation.
This has no relation to what actually happened in the school, They are going to conduct a investigation if they can find a link between video violence in children, the people in the school were considered adults, further no real scientist would do any research on this because there is no real evidence to speak of.
This is just a policitical game from a senate. The reason behind it could be many, maybe to gain more trust in a coming elelection or to steer away the debate from the gun laws etc.
On December 20 2012 09:23 Darkhoarse wrote: People need to realize that the fact that a killer playing violent video games is not a cause, its a correlation. This person is obviously messed up and desensitized to violence as it is, so he plays violent video games. The video games did not cause him to shoot up an elementary school. If they did, we would have a hell of a lot more school shootings then we already do. And of all the games to label a culprit, Starcraft? Really? Maybe Grand Theft Auto or some of those ridiculously bloody games out there but blaming Starcraft is a ridiculous notion. I don't get it. I play Starcraft all of the time and I've never had any inkling to go shoot up a school. The only thing I've wanted to do recently is shoot myself from watching all of the American media's ridiculous coverage and explanations of the event.
Why does the US government think that have games that are too violent or "war-like" will cause people to become murderers? Even if that was the case, (which it isn't) how can they worry about games like call of duty being too "war-like" when they are sending US citizens to actual war. I think fighting in an actual war and ending up with PTSD has to be the more serious problem if they are worried about people fighting "virtual war" in video games.
I am in no way claiming that video games cause one to do violence, pretty sure there are other emotional background issues that there should be more available care for... I'm also pretty sure a survivalist mom having a closet full of automatic weapons around a kid she already knew was a little on edge (had warned baby sitters not to turn their backs on him) wasn't a great idea either and that these types of weapons shouldn't be as available as they are. I'm also against trying to both use this as a reason to arm teachers or to find our own politically motivated scapegoats (including video games). All that said, I run an after school program and I have a lot of 2nd and 3rd graders who go home at night and play first person kill the terrorist type games and are pretty into making everything into a weapon and threatening others with similar language to the games in the afternoon. I played a lot of video games growing up and don't see an issue with them in general, especially for kids who are a little older, I would however encourage parents to not start their young kids too early on the most graphic ones. It may not cause them to actually commit murder, but man does it make for a culture of aggressive play and effects the array of scenarios they are able to imagine in how people should interact. It's certainly mine and others jobs to help facilitate these more creative interactions/conversations, but seriously, there's a lot of games out there that don't involve highly realistic simulation of automatic weapons. Mix some of em in..
On December 20 2012 13:54 zwitter wrote: I am in no way claiming that video games cause one to do violence, pretty sure there are other emotional background issues that there should be more available care for... I'm also pretty sure a survivalist mom having a closet full of automatic weapons around a kid she already knew was a little on edge (had warned baby sitters not to turn their backs on him) wasn't a great idea either and that these types of weapons shouldn't be as available as they are. I'm also against trying to both use this as a reason to arm teachers or to find our own politically motivated scapegoats (including video games). All that said, I run an after school program and I have a lot of 2nd and 3rd graders who go home at night and play first person kill the terrorist type games and are pretty into making everything into a weapon and threatening others with similar language to the games in the afternoon. I played a lot of video games growing up and don't see an issue with them in general, especially for kids who are a little older, I would however encourage parents to not start their young kids too early on the most graphic ones. It may not cause them to actually commit murder, but man does it make for a culture of aggressive play and effects the array of scenarios they are able to imagine in how people should interact. It's certainly mine and others jobs to help facilitate these more creative interactions/conversations, but seriously, there's a lot of games out there that don't involve highly realistic simulation of automatic weapons. Mix some of em in..
right the real problem is the parents who work too much and just let there kids sit in front of the TV/computer for hours on end because the alternative is spending time with him and doing there job as a parent
Sometimes i feel lucky about living on a country which its people doesn't care about gaming and somewhat realizes that games are not "the devil's presence!".
At this point I'm sure the US go full blown moral panic on it due to the fact this time it was a particularly terrible incident involving young children.
But in the grand scheme of things, mass killings by random nut cases is NOT that big of a problem here in the US and I predict a massive over-reaction.
It's a lot like after 9/11 how insane everyone got with combatting "terrorism" or whatever, despite the fact you or your family dying of terrorism is almost non-existant. But instead we spent trillions of dollars, threw a way a bunch of civil liberties, destroyed a few dozen cities, killed a few hundred thousand people, ruined the lives of millions, all to combat a minor nuisance that the media and politicians had turned into a gigantic scary boogie man.
When you just do cold analysis in terms of problems facing society, in terms of cost of dollars and lives, these type of incidents are not particularly high on the list and I don't think stripping away more civil liberties and giving the government a monopoly on weapons is a particular smart play to combat something so small.
I'm aware that to the families of the dead (either 9/11 or the Conn. shooting) that this sounds like the tragedies are being marginalized but that's really not the case, it's just very important to keep everything in proper perspective in the grand scheme of things. As poker players we should all be familiar with the importance of not over-reacting to a single particularly terrible outcome.
It's also not to say that we should do nothing, clearly if there are legit things that can be done to reduce the number of these shootings in some way that should be explored, but those efforts must be proportional to the actual problem.
Maybe someone should point out to all the people hanging on to the second amendment that the threats aren't really the same 2012 as in the 1780s. Limiting the ease with which a random, slightly mentally disturbed person can get his/her hands on a fire-arm might be a good idea. NRA is killing eSports, letting us take the blame!
On December 20 2012 13:54 zwitter wrote: I am in no way claiming that video games cause one to do violence, pretty sure there are other emotional background issues that there should be more available care for... I'm also pretty sure a survivalist mom having a closet full of automatic weapons around a kid she already knew was a little on edge (had warned baby sitters not to turn their backs on him) wasn't a great idea either and that these types of weapons shouldn't be as available as they are. I'm also against trying to both use this as a reason to arm teachers or to find our own politically motivated scapegoats (including video games). All that said, I run an after school program and I have a lot of 2nd and 3rd graders who go home at night and play first person kill the terrorist type games and are pretty into making everything into a weapon and threatening others with similar language to the games in the afternoon. I played a lot of video games growing up and don't see an issue with them in general, especially for kids who are a little older, I would however encourage parents to not start their young kids too early on the most graphic ones. It may not cause them to actually commit murder, but man does it make for a culture of aggressive play and effects the array of scenarios they are able to imagine in how people should interact. It's certainly mine and others jobs to help facilitate these more creative interactions/conversations, but seriously, there's a lot of games out there that don't involve highly realistic simulation of automatic weapons. Mix some of em in..
right the real problem is the parents who work too much and just let there kids sit in front of the TV/computer for hours on end because the alternative is spending time with him and doing there job as a parent
I'm trying not to comment before I make my 2k blog, but this post is worth it. As a kid I never saw the point of this, but as a more mature kid I do see the reason my parents did not let me have call of duty at age 12. The games do not make people violent, but they increase the amount of violence tolerated or normalize the language and activities presented; this is especially true for younger children who mimic the activities to the tee. Even 7th graders do it, not as much as 3rd graders, but I've seen that games do have an affect. Will it make someone go out and shoot up a school? No. Will it it make younger kids more belligerent and aggressive? Maybe in some cases. Will it increase children's tolerance for violence and normalize activities presented the video games before they can differentiate the differences between what is acceptable in video games compared to real life? Most certainly.
Well everyone in the younger generations plays video games.
Maybe the Senate should be asking instead, "Why do Americans want to kill each other so much more than in other Western countries?" Might also be interesting to note all the video-game playing that goes on in said other countries.
It's a wonder that we haven't yet had idiots blaming chess for promoting Machiavellian ideals, manipulation, and an obsession with materialism. These politicians are worthless jokes.
I just sent a message containing the following text to the senator that has proposed this. Chances are he will not read it, however it might be helpful.
I recently have noticed a large trend of news outlets putting forward various notes how gaming can cause a person to become a murderer.
I would like to state my displeasure at this recent bill you have proposed. I feel that the studies have already been done many times over, and have shown that there is absolutely no correlation between gaming and crime. In fact, studies have shown an INVERSE relationship. Studies have also shown that the majority of killers cite literature as the key motivator, followed by movies, and games being the last medium stated at only about 15%.
I would like to point to a quick anecdote, that if you plan to pass this legislature would be best to consider. South Korea has one of the highest game consumption rates of any country in the world. Many games there have actually become televised sports, watched by millions. The recent proleague broadcasts had over 1 million concurrent viewers just in south korea alone. In the entire history of South Korea, there has not been a single school shooting. South Korea also has one of the lowest crime rates of any country.
I would request you take a brief moment and view the following YouTube video, which I feel correctly states some facts that I hope are an oversight. The creator of the video does go a bit overboard with the attack on mass-media, however the facts are still 100% true and can be found in many studies.
Lastly, I ask that consider the propensity for a "study" to be corrupted and simply show what is expected, or to fail at showing the difference between correlation and causation. Games desensitize people to violence, but the do not cause it.
Well I don't mind a study if it is conducted correctly and professionally. It should only show what every other study has shown, that video games have a minor correlation to aggression in children (no causation proven) and none to actual violent behavior.
We see these come and go. Aside from the mandatory labeling on boxes, not much has changed in the US. I'm not expecting much to come from this unless a bigger lobby gets behind it with more money and studies to push through bigger legislation. Stuff like showing photo ID before buying violent video games, specifically making "M for Mature" require 18+ years have been goals in the past (though its more Moms/Dads/Relatives buying for minor children, but I digress). That partially addresses his quote from the article:
“Major corporations, including the video game industry, make billions on marketing and selling violent content to children,” Rockefeller said in an e-mailed statement. “They have a responsibility to protect our children. If they do not, you can count on the Congress to take a more aggressive role.”
And then sterner warnings on the back directed at parents. For a contemporary example, look at South Korea's mandated warnings currently existing on every SC2-Korea game launch (18+ drugs alcohol scary situations, and 12+ as well iirc). Those are my predictions to what we can expect from bills in the next 2 years if the lobbies get even more political power.
On December 20 2012 15:14 Danglars wrote: We see these come and go. Aside from the mandatory labeling on boxes, not much has changed in the US. I'm not expecting much to come from this unless a bigger lobby gets behind it with more money and studies to push through bigger legislation. Stuff like showing photo ID before buying violent video games, specifically making "M for Mature" require 18+ years have been goals in the past (though its more Moms/Dads/Relatives buying for minor children, but I digress). That partially addresses his quote from the article:
“Major corporations, including the video game industry, make billions on marketing and selling violent content to children,” Rockefeller said in an e-mailed statement. “They have a responsibility to protect our children. If they do not, you can count on the Congress to take a more aggressive role.”
And then sterner warnings on the back directed at parents. For a contemporary example, look at South Korea's mandated warnings currently existing on every SC2-Korea game launch (18+ drugs alcohol scary situations, and 12+ as well iirc). Those are my predictions to what we can expect from bills in the next 2 years if the lobbies get even more political power.
It's probably just political games for popularity, and like you said, these smaller "investigations", or attempts of them, literally happens all the time, with no effects of whatsoever to speak of. No one would even care about this if it wasn't because of the recent shooting.
I sell video games for 2 years now. I meet with things like: I dont want my kid to play shooter or war game because he might do something bad. or my favorit one. Customer: So you are saying that 14-16 years old boys are playing this game called CoD ? Do their parents even watch TV ? Do they know what happened in states ?
I LOVE MY JOB AND I LOVE GAMES AND TODAY IM GOING TO SELL ALL THE SC2 WE HAVE LEFT !
Surely the vast entertainment media lobby will come to the rescue? They practically run America, right? Or maybe that's just for hollywood and music records...
On December 20 2012 05:42 HeavOnEarth wrote: close pls
User was warned for this post
but i said said pls , god damit fu TL mods!!! grrrr....!!! gosugamers was better than u, TL is nothing(super serious face) + Show Spoiler +
User was killed for this post
I think this clearly shows that a study needs to be conducted to determine the link between TL modding and murder...
they even killed that dude!!!! TL modders are murderers!!!!!..........
yust like how sc encourges violance which shoudn't happen becouse A: who doesn't want to look like a shooting marine, B: if he played more than 1 game he should be smart enough to know that killing is fucking awfull.
On December 20 2012 16:26 Tanukki wrote: Surely the vast entertainment media lobby will come to the rescue? They practically run America, right? Or maybe that's just for hollywood and music records...
no one will come to the rescue since it doesn't matter, nothing will happen or come out of this. The main "villains" regarding this seems to be the gun laws, mental disorder and the media coverage itself being at fault for portraying these people as some sort of anti heroes of society. The actual role of video games haven't gotten that much real exposure.
It really sucks that when I kill 5 people in a row, I have no announcer to call out "RAMPAGE!"
People really need to find better things to do with their time and money ffs. Really they do. Give your time and money to me and I could make the world a better place while playing video games between projects. Fucking retards. What did they have to blame for serial murderers before there were video games? Those are probably the same things that make people killers today.
Society loves to use a scapegoat because it's a lot easier to blame than the actual issues. When Columbine happened the media blamed violent television shows / movies, video games, and music (Marylin Manson comes to mind). The real issue is mental health, but it's a lot easier to say "ban all video games" then to say "help those with mental illnesses"
Guys! This just in! The shooter also ate sandwiches and drank water. New study is going to happen about whether eating sandwiches and drinking water impacts your desire to kill people.
This could result in the banning of all subways and draining all lakes in the United States!
On December 20 2012 08:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: games like SC and CoD, I don't think should be regulated. games like GTA should be straight up banned.
Ban one game, why not ban 'em all? It's a slippery slope, and even then I don't see what the problem with a little bit of cathartic virtual mass murder is as long as people playing are sane enough to not go kill real people anyways.
This really grinds my gears.... Obviously gun control is the real issue, but there is something sickening about the way a tragedy makes everyone push whatever agenda they already had. To make sense of something which is basically ununderstandable, all the old fogeys are trying to inflict their prejudices on everyone. With their worldview shaken, the only solution is to insist on all the old stuff more and more loudly.
'Studies have shown time and time again that games have no impact on a healthy mind... The 2 students in columbine used to go bowling, DONT YOU SEE THE CONNECTION?!?! The guy probably took a dump or had cereal for breakfast...
100% of all killers contained fluid! Somebody should look into that.
Totalbiscuit made a really good video concerning matters such as these. But haven't there already been many studies that show video games don't have anything to do with violent behavior?
As said a million and 1 times before, another study seems rather obsolete after all the ones that already have been done, with the same outcomes over and over. If there really is a correlation between the SC2 and the actions of this person, Korea must be a terrible insecure country to be living.......
When i saw the topic title i knew Lieberman would be involved.And Jay Rockefeller? really? The guy who said it would have been better if the internet had never existed?
On December 20 2012 20:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: When i saw the topic title i knew Lieberman would be involved.And Jay Rockefeller? really? The guy who said it would have been better if the internet had never existed? + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY
He says:
"It really almost makes you ask the question wouldn't it have been better if we had never invented the internet, and had to use paper and pencil or whatever. And that's a stupid thing to say, but it has genuine consequence. (referring to hacking attempts on the government)
This guy is an idiot but don't put words in his mouth.
How could they say CoD is doing bad things to kids when in every game the free and democrat americans go and deliver "peace, prosperity, freedom and democracy" to everyone? They should have a better legislation for guns and stop with the video games stuff it's just lame. How come you don't hear about school shootings in UK, France, Germany, Japan for example? Don't they play games there? Better for you americans to ban the internet, the pc and the consoles to be very safe and put the kids to read about ponies and barbie.
They should commission a study on McD. I bet Sandy hook shooter and all other shooters before him ate McD in the years before they killed ppl. That must mean that eating McD makes you shoot ppl ......
If they need to find a scapegoat look no further than the media. Everytime they report shootings somebody somewhere is thinking man if i do the same i can be famous too!!
Its like they'll just blame anything to avoid tackling the real issues... i hate politicians. If video games is the cause of violence, then I guess they should be worried about the millions of gamers who are going to see this as an attack on their freedom of speech.
After the shooting happened in the Dark Knight premiere, I watched TV and found a morning show where they discussed the impact of gaming of people's aggression. Not to mention it was hilarious, the poor guy(author of a gaming magazine) they interviewed tried his best but explaining gaming someone who has never ever seen anyone playing computer games can be extremely difficult. The reporter thought the murderer was using Call of Duty as a training program and he simulated the actual circumstances in the game, and she thought you need a special gun shaped controller to play this game. It is much easier to blame the computer games and media blows up the whole thing, convinces the people who never played games that video games are the spawn of Satan and drives people crazy.
Suddenly I indeed feel the urge to murder... Certain polticians surely wont be missed, seems like a decent place to start. Oh god human stupidity really is infinite.
the funny part was my thread was closed when i said this was gonna happen you guys are really dumb if you think the media are not gonna effect your lives. THEY ARE LITERALLY BLAMING STARCRAFT AND GAMES for people dieing NOT GUNS they are doing WHAT THE NAZIS'S DID TO THE JEWS we are the SCAPE GOAT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING about these ignorant people WE HAVE TO SPREAD THE WORD AND TRY TO OPEN THERE EYES instead of just sitting around and doing nothing!!!!!!!!!!
I dont want 70 year old men who are filthy rich whose only motive in life is to stomp on poor people and only get richer to decide what my life should be if we do nothing they will destroy our community.
Lobbyists for NRA and pro gun groups and politicans are trying to pin blame on everything but themselves we need to spread the word someone has to get on the news and debate with these people we need threads through reddit and every possbile media outlets NOW!
KOREA HAD ZERO SCHOOL SHOOTINGS and we all know korea is number one in starcraft. We had over 10,000 shootings across america please guys do something spread the word the media and politicans are lying to everyone. Its obvious whats the problem is America has the most guns per citizens than any other nation THAT IS THE PROBLEM
Eh I find 18 months to be a very interesting length of time. In 18 months no one will be paying attention to issue so doing anything would be difficult if 18 months werent right in the heat of the election season. This study seems like more of an excuse to say they are looking at everything to appease people who think they are just going after guns.
On December 20 2012 07:13 Leroyx2 wrote: So they'll link a tragedy with Starcraft, but they won't say how there's a whole industry built around this game and how the growth of the eSports scene has been exponential? Fantastic.
This was my first thought too.Hell it's been almost 2.5 years of growth of esports and sc2 was always one of the main atractions if not the main atraction,and not once they mentioned it on mainstream news.Imo they don't even know what starcraft is except for the fact that it's ''just'' one other videogame.The other problem is they don't even know that linking a game to that tragedy(or blaming) they in fact actually may hurt esports for newcomers and the industry's growth.
On December 20 2012 07:13 Leroyx2 wrote: So they'll link a tragedy with Starcraft, but they won't say how there's a whole industry built around this game and how the growth of the eSports scene has been exponential? Fantastic.
This was my first thought too.Hell it's been almost 2.5 years of growth of esports and sc2 was always one of the main atractions if not the main atraction,and not once they mentioned it on mainstream news.Imo they don't even know what starcraft is except for the fact that it's ''just'' one other videogame.The other problem is they don't even know that linking a game to that tragedy(or blaming) they in fact actually may hurt esports for newcomers and the industry's growth.
You're correct. When you join a professional scene like e-sports, its all very "official" and "proper". Bad publicity or bad spins literally can ruin a scene overnight. If they keep naming SC2 specifically alongside Call of Duty and the others, sponsors might see this and think they'd rather not stick their names out there for something controversial. Its not just hypothetical, this is coming from experience in business. I shouldn't have to explain why scaring potential sponsors away before they even know about the scene because they saw on 5 news networks all owned and covertly operated by the same moron at the top say "Adam Lanza played Starcraft 2 frequently and may have gone on a rampage as a result" is bad.
Wait, what.. it is THE Jay Rockefeller who is doing this? That explains the odd nature of it and why we won't actually see any of this beyond that its been mentioned in a newspaper.
Satying that someone played SCII and then committed an atrocity is close to saying that they drank milk a lot and committed an atrocity. To do something like that you have to be completely ****ed up to begin with, and the video games probably had little to do with it.
A feable attempt to make it look like you're taking action in response to such a horrible traumatic event, without touching the ever-important and incredibly controversial issue of gun control, which is so divisive and potentially damaging to an american politician.
It's funny that FPS games get some of the most scrutiny by these anti -ideo game types, especially since most of them are based on the fundamentals of war; something that just about every government that has ever existed in human history has condoned. If they really want to scrutinize video games so much, perhaps they should also scrutinize the defense budget as well. Hypocrites.
Ah nothing like wasting more cash on stupid projects to make yourself look good. Oh well, it's just so good to know that my congress has time to deal with video games but can't quite bother passing a budget or you know deal with that whole on the verge of an economic cliff thing. Clearly throwing money at a study about video games potential for violence is the more important issue at hand! *sigh*
First it was comic books, followed by rock and roll, followed by D&D, onto blaming Rap music and than TV and Movies and currently Video games. What tripe and what a colossal waste of time and money.
Of course the killer played games. Studies show that almost every you male in the US does (http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Teens-Video-Games-and-Civics/04-11-Who-Is-Playing-Games/3-Almost-all-girls-and-boys-play-video-games.aspx).
You could sample anyone in the demographic and in 99% of the cases they would have played video games to some degree. You could most likely also blame violence in general, since it is not unique to games. Violence exists in books, news, the real world and pretty much every other media we have access to. You can use the same hypothesis to support the ban/restriction for anything that isnt a cooking show or spongebob (unsure about the latter).
There is also a very long historical tradition of glorifying violent people. We hold parades for returning soldier who are essentially just government sanctioned murderers. We depict generals as heroes, despite knowing full well that some of the most attrocious crimes of war were their doing. Each and every part of our history is saturated with violence and we do not condemn it there. In fact, in many ways we encourage it. Just look at how most countries were even formed.
Computer games are no more or less violent than the rest of the world. They are a cultural reflection of our time and all of the history behind our society today. The only difference between playing a game and watching a movie is that you are cognitively engaged in a game. It poses abstract challenges that you need to overcome, a movie does not.
There is a generation gap however. A lot of older people never played games on computers, but they did play board games. How is risk or chess any less violent? They are not, just different. Regardless of this, the computer games are unknown to some people and people are afraid of the unknown. In my lifetime, the people in charge have blamed the following things for causing violence and "unwanted" behaviour:
- metal music - hiphop - trance/rave - dungeons and dragons - comic books - disney movies and other childrens tv - vampire books (didn't catch on really) - satanism - violent TV - violent movies - violent games - martial arts - online forums (a place for all above mentioned rejects I suppose)
Im 27 years old. This is not a long time frame for such a wide array of conclusions. What they all have in common is that they are all new kinds of activities. Such things did not exist when the older people were young and hence they get suspected of cause all the troubles in the world.
Not that there actually are troubles. I think across the board crime and violence is on a decline, but I don't have sources for that. If true, this means that the people of today are less violent than the people that belong to the older generation were. Despite school shootings, 99% of the less violent people play games. What are they even trying to find? That there is some sort of global epidemic of mass murderers just waiting to happen?
Try looking into how society has become so adept at not just alienating but systematically judging and comparing people to others all the time. What happens to the people who can't play that game? They get marginalized. Look at how so many people are miserable despite living perfectly good lives. This is the common ground for all these school shootings, not video games.
On December 21 2012 02:01 timurStas wrote: The only way sc2 can help a killer is if he uses drones controlled topographically with a mouse and keyboard.
Uhm. I think you just defined the new era of warfare.
New headline inc:
US Government increases drone capability, hires SC2 pros.
This is just godamn hilarious, the actual problem that leads to these shootings, America's massive gun lobby keeping the damn things legal and easily obtainable, just get's ignored because Obama doesn't have the balls to stand up to them. And now Video games have to be the scapegoat, because they have to blame something right? At this point, so many kids play video games that it's very unlikely for one to do a shooting while not having played any, not to mention that if parents don't want their kids playing video games, they're prolly not going to have a gun either.
But fuck it, let's censor video games even further then they already are (because we can have ultra violent movies but video games have to be straight up banned instead of being bound to age restrictions), god bless America.
On December 21 2012 05:30 Xirroh wrote: A study looking at the behavioral effect of violent video games on people who are already diagnosed with a mental disorder could be benifitial.
...because if only the spoiled brat SRI prescribed Aspergers syndrome Ritalin head with the Bushmaster .223, Sig, and Glock hadn’t played STARCRAFT in the nerd club at school, none of this would have ever happened!
Fucking morons... our legislators ignorance and hypocracy are palpable!
Jesus did any of you even read the OP? They just want to do a study on the effects of video game violence. Chances are this is a GOOD THING that they are doing this. Now there will finally be clear evidence done by real, legitimate scientists on whether or not video game violence correlates with real life violence (pro-tip: it doesn't, so you have nothing to worry about).
Stop worrying and realize this is a good thing in disguise (the study, not the violence).
On December 21 2012 05:49 SirKibbleX wrote: Jesus did any of you even read the OP? They just want to do a study on the effects of video game violence. Chances are this is a GOOD THING that they are doing this. Now there will finally be clear evidence done by real, legitimate scientists on whether or not video game violence correlates with real life violence (pro-tip: it doesn't, so you have nothing to worry about).
Stop worrying and realize this is a good thing in disguise (the study, not the violence).
If the National Academy of Sciences has as much credibility as Iowa State University’s Professor Craig Anderson who heads the International Society for Research on Aggression and quotes their "conclusive" studies on CNN without mentioning he's the director and ultimately commissioned the study, I think we have plenty of reason to be worried!
On December 21 2012 05:49 SirKibbleX wrote: Jesus did any of you even read the OP? They just want to do a study on the effects of video game violence. Chances are this is a GOOD THING that they are doing this. Now there will finally be clear evidence done by real, legitimate scientists on whether or not video game violence correlates with real life violence (pro-tip: it doesn't, so you have nothing to worry about).
Stop worrying and realize this is a good thing in disguise (the study, not the violence).
They are doing it on children which means it has nothing to do with this incident. the only outcome is just more recommendations regarding age limits and restricting regarding what children may and may not play, nothing useful will come out which would shed light on this situation. Further you cannot disprove something in science. And the study will not be about correlation but about causality/causation.
On December 21 2012 05:49 SirKibbleX wrote: Jesus did any of you even read the OP? They just want to do a study on the effects of video game violence. Chances are this is a GOOD THING that they are doing this. Now there will finally be clear evidence done by real, legitimate scientists on whether or not video game violence correlates with real life violence (pro-tip: it doesn't, so you have nothing to worry about).
Stop worrying and realize this is a good thing in disguise (the study, not the violence).
your actually pretty dumb, these people who head the study are people that are pro gun anti internet who want to blame everything on something else but them selves. Its like giving a cop who shot a kid to do an investigation on himself.
I might actually favor such a measure - a study by the National Academy of Sciences would value peer review, and actually have to account for things like confirmation bias. If the study showed that the correlation between violent videogames and crimes is no stronger than with violent movies or other media - and gave a clear analysis of the lack of causal evidence - then some people would end up with a lot of egg on their face
On December 20 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote: Well, if the study is carried out correctly, I don't think we have anything to worry about. This is just Jay Rockefeller trying to score some cheap political points.
On December 21 2012 12:01 Tohron wrote: I might actually favor such a measure - a study by the National Academy of Sciences would value peer review, and actually have to account for things like confirmation bias. If the study showed that the correlation between violent videogames and crimes is no stronger than with violent movies or other media - and gave a clear analysis of the lack of causal evidence - then some people would end up with a lot of egg on their face
When a rich man pays you to conduct a study where you may or may not find the cause of serial killings, your scientific objectivity is gone before you even started.
This is a witch hunt, it started in the wrong end because of the general publics lack of scientific rigor.
Even if they do manage to somehow prove that videogames makes people murderers the study will be worthless in a peer review.
This thread bothers me as much as it bothers many of you, but I think the answer to this problem is to just behave extremely well online and offline. We all know that videogames in general, and starcraft in particular does not, by itself create murderers, but these legislators that didn't grow up with them and see virtual violence link the dots. And it is completely understandable.
I think if video game communities started hosting pro-societal events, like charity events for crime victims or things to help build funds for local groups we might lose the stigma that we have as a place where psychotic criminals are born,
On December 20 2012 08:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: games like SC and CoD, I don't think should be regulated. games like GTA should be straight up banned.
Ban one game, why not ban 'em all? It's a slippery slope, and even then I don't see what the problem with a little bit of cathartic virtual mass murder is as long as people playing are sane enough to not go kill real people anyways.
Banning video games would be like banning violent movies. I liked watching The Matrix and I liked playing GTA, both of which have violent depictions of mass murder by the protagonist. If you think video games are making kids violent just slap a 17+ requirement on them and you're good to go. That's what they do with movies (rated R) and it works fine.
I bet said shooters quoted from the article in the topic post also ate some junk food. Maybe we should have a big investigation into the effect of trans fats on the brain? (Which I bet fucks us up more than any video games we might play! :D )
Starcraft is a great battlefield for this topic to be fought on and once again deliver a humiliating defeat to the people who want to censor everything. It is among the least graphically violent while technically containing violence games you can find without a <T rating, and the RTS genre as a medium...just perfect. The video game industry and enthusiasts should be happy that the censorship people have taken what would have been bait for a trap if only it were planned rather than brought on by a tragedy.
After some of the games being discussed in the previous instances where this came up, and iirc they have not won anywhere large yet, it's unbelievable that we are going into it again with Starcraft in the headline/poster. Framing the issue as one of going after whatever latest graphic shooter, bonus points for something with controversial subject material or sexual content, should be the assumption. It goes to show how entirely clueless the pro-censorship politicians are about the issue.
My overall point being there is reason to be hopeful here and/or excited about this. It has a chance to be a nice damaging loss to put these ideas behind for a while.
I dunno about you guys but the last time I got angry in real life I found myself trying to find a spanner to build a refinery so I could all in that bastard.
On December 20 2012 05:29 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Gee, we played starcraft. Anyone feel like going on a murdering rampage? Instead of scrutinizing gun laws which is the most blatant issue, we're looking at video games which has been the subject of witch hunts for about a century now?
I feel like going on a muderous rampage. On dumb politicians.
EPT
, god damit fu TL mods!!! grrrr....!!! gosugamers was better than u, TL is nothing(super serious face)![[image loading]](http://cdn3.whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/RJ.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/video-game-chart-no-trendline.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OWKIi.jpg)
