|
On July 18 2009 07:42 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2009 07:32 Zoler wrote:
This is stupid, there is nothing to argue about. People that are against video games should never be listened to.
In a few years the old will be dead and we won't have to care about this debate anymore. Thanks for the input but you don't seem to be even have considered the option that video games affect people in both good and bad ways. "Should never be listened to"? Nice one.
We don't need fucking science. Just use your common sense. + Show Spoiler + Games can make you smarter, but if you spend 24 hours a day playing it won't be good for you, just like ANYTHING you spend 24 hours a day doing.
I think this is just too overhyped. In 20-30 years if video games exists as it does today, everyone will laugh at this as we watch whatever e-sport final on national TV.
|
Xbox 360 controller
What could his children possibly be playing on the 360 that isn't some what violent? This guy is full of shit.
|
Relax, the XBox is obviously just for research purposes.
|
Poor kid T_T
and that big guy.. the one on the convention.. fuck he was weird
|
On July 17 2009 08:05 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
I can't even believe this is an issue. Parents hold themselves accountable for nothing these days, always looking for something or someone else to blame. They're YOUR shitty kids! You stop them playing FPS if that's what you really want. Don't fucking force it on everyone else's perfectly normal kids. God, it makes me sick.
Best thing I've heard in a while. Couldn't agree more!
|
I want to play Mario and do drugs in hopes that ill grow bigger
|
I definitely wouldn't mind seeing laws passed to prevent M rated games from being sold to people under 17. I don't play anything more violent than starcraft on a regular basis, but I definitely don't think a 12 year old should be exposed to something like GTA4.
|
On July 18 2009 09:31 Drowsy wrote:
I definitely wouldn't mind seeing laws passed to prevent M rated games from being sold to people under 17. I don't play anything more violent than starcraft on a regular basis, but I definitely don't think a 12 year old should be exposed to something like GTA4.
Are there not these laws in other places? I said this before and no one responded to it - whenever anyone I know goes to buy a video game that's M, they're ID'd just like you would be at a bar.
|
On July 18 2009 09:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2009 09:31 Drowsy wrote:
I definitely wouldn't mind seeing laws passed to prevent M rated games from being sold to people under 17. I don't play anything more violent than starcraft on a regular basis, but I definitely don't think a 12 year old should be exposed to something like GTA4. Are there not these laws in other places? I said this before and no one responded to it - whenever anyone I know goes to buy a video game that's M, they're ID'd just like you would be at a bar.
I believe it's only a state law and not every state has it. Beyond that I don't think any additional protection is needed. Obviously it's not going to create legions of serial killers, as the videos explained perfectly, but you have to realize that excessive violence is still going to alter and shape the world-views of children, and they may be more dramatically affected at a younger age. By 14-15 or so they're probably mature enough to handle just about anything.
|
The hypocrisy of Generation X telling Generation Y what to do after their pretty shitty track record is pretty funny.
|
I loved the football analogy at the end, that was perfect.
|
I liked this documentary.
|
On July 18 2009 09:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2009 09:31 Drowsy wrote:
I definitely wouldn't mind seeing laws passed to prevent M rated games from being sold to people under 17. I don't play anything more violent than starcraft on a regular basis, but I definitely don't think a 12 year old should be exposed to something like GTA4. Are there not these laws in other places? I said this before and no one responded to it - whenever anyone I know goes to buy a video game that's M, they're ID'd just like you would be at a bar.
Stores voluntarily prohibit the sale of M rated games to minors, just like the movie theaters. Very few jurisdictions have laws enforcing such ratings because they typically violate constitutional freedom of speech protections.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
On July 17 2009 08:09 InToTheWannaB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2009 07:42 Frits wrote:
Who says that knowing the difference between fantasy and reality is the big problem with video games? There's a lot of bad arguments in that video and none of them really stand up to the countless research programs that state otherwise, then again I suppose it's for the all sake of comedy. As it is right now, in the field of psychology violent video games (or movies) are considered a bad influence on children by most people, though I do think most people are exaggerating the effects. Well Frits as TL resident psychologist can you tell us all what kind of bad influence violent video games do have on kids? Just saying countless research programs shows they are a bad influence is a pretty general statement.
I didn't see Frits reply to this, and I haven't done any work on this in a while, but from what I remember...
Violent games have multiple negative effects on children. Firstly, children become sensitized to violence, meaning they lose the sense of repulsion towards violence that society typically tries to ingrain children with. This does not mean that game-playing children will be gung-ho for violence, just that they'll feel less opposed to violence than other children. That's the thing with computer games and violence, computer games don't cause violence, they're just a risk factor in children developing violent behaviour.
Secondly, computer games behaviourally train children to respond more violently in certain situations. Once again, this is not a direct causal relationship. If you obtain joy from "killing" a player thousands of times, then violence becomes associated with joy, or stress release, making it more likely for you to aggress at a later stage. The argument against this is of course that games are far enough removed from reality that children find it easy to distinguish between socially acceptable violence in the computer game, and violence in real life. However, studies have shown that this is not true for all children, even in games as fantastical as the LoTR MMO.
Studies have also been done between children who play violent games, and who don't, and the children who don't, and the children who play violent games were more aggressive by far. However, studies like that always have a directionality problem, so they weren't really conclusive.
I don't know where I stand on the topic myself. On the one hand, I enjoyed playing FPS games as a child, and I still do. I can't remember when last I had as much fun as lanning L4D recently. On the other hand, psychological research is stacked up against computer games fairly heavily, and the reasoning behind the research is also fairly solid, so I think it's undeniable that computer games will lead to at least some people reacting more violently, and probably raises the likelihood of aggressive responses in most people to some extent. We don't know how much more people are aggressive in everyday life because of violent television and games, because we accept it as normal, but it's almost certain that removing those two factors will make the world a less violent place.
On July 17 2009 08:05 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
I can't even believe this is an issue. Parents hold themselves accountable for nothing these days, always looking for something or someone else to blame. They're YOUR shitty kids! You stop them playing FPS if that's what you really want. Don't fucking force it on everyone else's perfectly normal kids. God, it makes me sick.
I agree with you that parents should take more responsibility, but on the other hand, it is also the state's responsibility that children are not exposed to unreasonable risks. For example, if anybody, regardless of age, could buy a gun, parents should still have to take responsibility for their childrens' actions, but is that a risk we want children exposed to?
On July 17 2009 10:29 Torenhire wrote:Show nested quote +Learn how to properly educate your children and you won't need to feed them BS in order to make sure they are not serial killers.
winnar!
On July 18 2009 03:18 Stratos.FEAR wrote:
There wouldn't be an issue if the parents would stop letting their kids play GTA or other stuff if they knew their kids were troubled. this just goes to show that some parents dont give a shit about what their kids do and believe that their 'little angels' have been corrupted by some video game which they paid no attention to the M rating on the game.
These quotes might make a good counterargument if you accept that all parents are reasonable people who do their best to raise their children. However, some parents are shitty parents, and if shitty parenting + violent computer are directly related to the etiology of serial killers, what then? Do we just say that there's two causes, and place the onus on the parents to do their part, too bad for the victims if the parents fuck up? As a possible risk factor in the development of aggressive behaviour, it's not unreasonable to try to limit its effects.
On July 17 2009 12:38 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2009 11:11 Kwark wrote:On July 17 2009 10:09 CharlieMurphy wrote:
Why the hell was that kid crying, what a pussy. He's 9 and guns are fucking scary. I'm pretty sure I fired a gun at that age and I didn't cry, we even killed some rabbits.
And look what a nice demure young man you are now! Haha, I don't know if it was your intention, but it seemed a bit ironic.
You could argue that trouble kids being able to lose themselves in a fantasy world allows them to act normally in reality. I don't think there's been to much evidence specifically for video games regarding the matter (it's a bit difficult to test). There has been research of catharsis methods such as hitting punching bags and kicking things that does show worsened moods and higher aggression (as apposed to not using such methods). They say that if you're hitting something that isn't the object of your pain, it doesn't help (but if it is, it does). But I think tho, that unless you are very unusual, you are not imagining the people you hate on the faces of the characters you shoot up, you're imagining yourself being a superhero (which would make it different and perhaps therapeutic).
There are quite a few problems with the catharsis theory that some things allow you to "let go" of your anger. Firstly, it's based on the frustration-aggression hypothesis which basically states that all frustration results in aggression. No matter how minor, frustration will lead to some form of aggression to release it, and it will fester until it is released. Unfortunately, the frustration-aggression hypothesis has been all but disproved in the last few decades. People don't have a store of aggression that needs to released every once in a while. Aggression is an affective state that can be activated or deactivated, depending on certain triggers. The problem with any form of anger managerment catharsis is that it teaches individuals to associate releasing aggression with joy, which makes it more likely that they will respond aggressively in future. A very simple case of operant conditioning, where individuals come to associate a specific stimulus (releasing aggression) with a consequence (feeling pleasure).
As you say, it is possible that children wouldn't associate the game violence from reality (eg. superhero). However, if you look at the way children experience the world, it is very unlikely that they do this very well. Children are much more effective at immersing themselves in fantasy worlds than adults, and it is unlikely that they would disassociate completely from the onscreen violence.
Yeah the problem here is that you can't "prove" that video games makes children more aggressive, because there are just too many factors involved. Science is too often overly focused on finding single causal links between stuff, and it isn't always possible like in this case.
Sure, I think video games can affect people in a bad way, saying anything else would be bullshit. If you think about it with an open mind, it's pretty odd that we have "games" involving running around shooting as many people as possible or hijacking cars or whatever. I mean, why do we want to do that? Is it a way of wenting aggression through safe means or does it strengthen our aggression, that can be caused by anything, from bad relationships, trouble at work etc etc.
You will never get a graph saying "56% of all children get 45% harmed by playing FPS games". I mean it's not quantifiable and whatever scienfitic method you choose will pretty much lack reliability and validity.
You can't "prove" anything in psychology. Psychology doesn't have any causal factors (except maybe in things like autism, but that's more neurology anyway). Psychology identifies risk factors, and then it identifies the strength of the correlation between the risk factor and the behaviour.
If we lived in an ideal world with no time or money constraints, and lots of twins to work on, proving how many people get influenced how much would be fairly easy. You could have a study of millions of separated twin pairs examined from birth, see which ones get exposed to violent gaming, measure which one ends up being the most aggressive, measure when they started getting aggressive, and if there's a correlation between that and the start of their gaming, identify any trends there are, etc. If you did a study like this, and used something like a matched group design (where children in the experimental group are matched to similar children in the control group) thus removing most external forces, you could give a fairly accurate measure of the effects of violent computer games. Unfortunately, this won't happen obviously. That doesn't mean that everything is useless though. Multiple smaller studies are generally done to examine different elements. For example, a correlational study might simply compare the aggression scores of thousands of children playing violent computer games to thousands of children who don't. If there's a correlation, then people would say that the test is interesting, but is undermined by directionality issues. Then researchers could use an experimental study to show directionality, where similar children are divided into an experimental group which is given a violent game to play for a few hours every day, while a control group is not allowed to play any violent games. Once again the strength of the relationship should be measured, etc. etc. In the end, you'll have a fairly good idea of the effects of violent gaming.
Haha. Sorry for the long reply, and sorry for what I expect to be a ton of typos and grammar mistakes. 3AM here, and I'm not going to check for errors now. Anyway, like someone else said, I think age restrictions regarding games should be enforced more tightly, but if people circumvent them, then it's their problem. There's no doubt in my mind that violent computer games can cause people to be more aggressive, and not just children. However, that does not mean that I think it should be taken off the market completely, and some of my best times as a teenager was playing R-rated Q3.
|
Poll: Did playing Violent games induced you to act violently in RL?
(Vote): FUCK YEA!!! I'M SHOOTING ASSHOLES AT SCHOOL TOMORROW!!!
(Vote): no, i'm not retarded enough to not being able to distinguish fantasies from reality.
I like most people around my age played and have watched and play alot of fucked up violent games and movies, which almost all of my peers and friends have done the same, we've teared of the wings of a demon with our virtual bare hands, chasing people around with a gigantic chainsaw and simulating killings, blew up the heads of countless walking zombies, blew up countless japanese and nazis in world war 2 and somehow, me and my peers doesn't ended up shooting people at school or commit any forms of violent crimes/act nor do we have the urge to perform such violent acts in real life.
nor have i heard of anyone in my school and workplace saying that they knew of anyone that have trouble separating fantasies from reality, or have their rage induced by playing violent games.
you played violent games, in fact almost everybody did, did u ended up being a mass murdering maniac? use common sense!
|
violent video games huh? what about the parents that do drugs or are gangsters, or get drunk and get hang overs... Wouldnt that make your child hate the world? Your own god damn parents are drunk, drugged, and are theives..... Violent video games, yes they have a bit of an affect, but it shouldnt be the main concern. The root problem is parenting people. Not games, if you dont want your child to play GTA4, then dont buy him it <,<
|
Most of the time in an FPS, you are the "good guy" and your killing the "bad guys". Your not killing someone who pissed you off in high school, your killing the guy that is a mass murdering asshole that plans to take over the world. The violence is not directed at anyone you would meet in real life.
Also, the character that you play is not you. I dont know any FPS games in which you make a character that is supposed to resemble you in any way. You are elite covert ops agent smith or something. You and your character remain very seperate entitys.
Its these factors that allow people to easily detach from a game and determine the boundaries between reality and the virtual world. No-one walks out of a movie thinking that they are John McClane, the same way no-one plays halo and thinks they are master chief.
There requires a serious problem for someone to mistake these lines. Only a kid who is already fucked up is going to act out anything he does in a computer game. And in this case, you need to address whats fucking the kid up in the first place, not the games.
|
On July 18 2009 02:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2009 10:17 vAltyR wrote:
The amusing thing was when Jack Thompson mentioned how 65% of America thinks we should limit the sale of violent video games. That actually makes a lot of sense. We already limit the sale of R-rated movies to kids under 17, it would make just as much sense to limit M-rated video games to kids under a certain age.
That being said, the whole argument that video games cause violence is crap. I love how they completely dismantled everything Jack Thompson and that other guy said. I don't really have much else to add to everything they mentioned in the videos. What the fuck is goin' on here? I wanted to smack that lawyer in the face and say, "They do, dumbass!" Do they not in some states? In Minnesota, whenever I try to by an M rated game, I get ID'd on the spot. You have to be 17 to buy an M rated game anywhere around here.
Really? I was unaware of that. Either way, I'm pretty sure we don't have those laws here in Virginia. I've bought M-rated games and never been ID'd. Maybe I just look old...
|
It's boring if you already know what they're talking about, but educational if you don't.
|
Canada7170 Posts
The fat guy reminds me of that guy from the Butt Out South Park episode. Rob Reiner?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://packphour.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/common-sense.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img118.imageshack.us/i/jackv.jpg/)
