POStudios Forum

The Royal Archives => Gaming Archives => Topic started by: wilco64256 on November 02, 2010, 05:17:00 PM

Title: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: wilco64256 on November 02, 2010, 05:17:00 PM
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1131761p1.html

I think this seems to be heading in a good direction for the industry - I always thought it was ridiculous that people were pushing for this law in the first place when we already have the ESRB and most retailers have reasonably effective policies in place for M-rate games in the first place.

Anyways, discuss.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: MusicallyInspired on November 02, 2010, 05:51:16 PM
Comic books yesterday, video games today, holograms tomorrow.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: wilco64256 on November 02, 2010, 06:21:56 PM
I take it as a good sign that less than a minute into Morazzini's speech they're ripping apart his logic, he's struggling right from the beginning to give them an even remotely reasonable basis for his claims.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Melook on November 02, 2010, 06:38:44 PM
They are good. They tore his argument up so fast. I didn't even read a quarter of it and I knew he lost. 
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: FFL2and3rocks on November 02, 2010, 06:52:14 PM
Haha, that was an entertaining read (although I skimmed through most of it). I would have laughed more if the term "murder simulator" came up, though.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Fierce Deity on November 02, 2010, 06:52:49 PM
I found Morazzini to be a tad ill-prepared. He obviously has his own reasons to hold onto his position, but I thought he was starting to become a broken record. It's nice to see that the Justices have a clear view of the circumstances and repercussions of their decision. The last thing California needs is a Prohibition, especially with Prop 19 and all of it's glory.  ::)

As a former video game retail associate that resides in California, I am somewhat attached to this case. In my experience, violent video games were sold with attentiveness to the ESRB rating and the presence of a parent or guardian. However, I never sensed a shift in attitude to the minors who bought violent video games. Minors may be underage, but they aren't mentally unstable. This whole "violent games make violent kids" rant is truly a bunch of hogwash. Maybe in a few cases, kids may get out of hand, but that falls under the jurisdiction of the parents and their parenting skills. No reason to let a few bad apples spoil the batch.

It was an intriguing read Weldon. Nice find. I like to think this will blow over, especially with the Justices take on the situation. If a law should be created for the benefit of Morazzini's position (as we all know, he's not the only one), I see it being so minor that it would hardly affect the industry on a grand scale.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Eike on November 02, 2010, 07:38:28 PM
Postal II? Lulz. But in all serious that was a hillarious read, especially the James Maddison bit. He was UNBELIEVABLELY unprepared. It was really pathetic to see he trying to make a comeback. My dad agreed when I explained it to him. He even chimed in upon the mention of ESRB and knew how dumb this case is.

I'm surprised that they didn't make use of video evidence and lack of games in their research. Though I got a huge chuckle out of the Mortal Kombat comment later on by the one justice. If they actually did some research and showed off some of the games they could of had some chance. But the judges really ripped them a new one and knew the right questions to ask. Today, the supreme court is my hero. Well done!
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: wilco64256 on November 02, 2010, 07:49:05 PM
Horribly ill-prepared in my opinion - you don't go before the Supreme Court with only a handful of references to support asking them to do something.  Plus the fact that he hasn't actually given any real definitions to what he's suggesting be implemented.

You're absolutely right that this is just a parental control issue, and several justices mentioned that facet as well - event if this law were passed parents could still buy anything they wanted for minors.  I believe the gaming industry is perfectly capable of policing itself in this matter without the government having to step in and create any new laws to regulate something we're already working to regulate.

That being said, I do also agree that there are a number of games out there that fall into the category I simply refer to as "garbage" that I don't care to play and I wouldn't ever buy for my kids no matter how much they begged, but I don't need any law to help me figure out which games are worth playing and which aren't.

I'm impressed with the court here - in total honesty they are all much older than our average crowd and I was a bit shocked at how aware they were of the issue and the gaming industry in general.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: LadyTerra on November 02, 2010, 10:02:40 PM
Wow.  Not only was Morazzini unprepared, he's way in over his head.  I mean, all of the publicized controversy Mortal Kombat went through and he seemed to have no idea of what it was.  And the bit about Vulcans cracked me up.

Still, when your best example is Postal 2, a game that was specifically made to offend people like that (which still wasn't as bad as the game Jack Thompson designed), you're in deep trouble.  I saw somewhere that they were also going to use Metal Gear Solid 3 as evidence for "realistically graphic first-aid using knives to take out bullets."  I'll see if I can find the article that mentions MGS3.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: wicked_lu on November 04, 2010, 11:00:42 AM
Minors may be underage, but they aren't mentally unstable. This whole "violent games make violent kids" rant is truly a bunch of hogwash. Maybe in a few cases, kids may get out of hand, but that falls under the jurisdiction of the parents and their parenting skills. No reason to let a few bad apples spoil the batch.

I agree with this completely. Not every kid is going to take what they learned from a game and go homocidal. It does boil down to the morales instilled in these kids by their parents. If the parents raised their child to know the difference between right and wrong, fact and fiction, then letting their child play these games shouldn't be this great fear of "Is my kid going to murder everyone now that they have played this game?"

They tried to do this some time ago with music...The whole Marilyn Manson case...it's ridiculous to blame musicians or actors or the gaming industry for the violent acts of individuals. People have free will, and their own minds and thought processes, regardless of what anyone can say or suggest, it doesn't MAKE anyone do anything they don't want to do. But, as a scapegoat, they blame these industries and make cases out of them to make themselves look better to their parents, their families, and the public eye.

And it's sad really.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: crayauchtin on November 04, 2010, 11:03:00 AM
I agree with this completely. Not every kid is going to take what they learned from a game and go homocidal. It does boil down to the morales instilled in these kids by their parents. If the parents raised their child to know the difference between right and wrong, fact and fiction, then letting their child play these games shouldn't be this great fear of "Is my kid going to murder everyone now that they have played this game?"

They tried to do this some time ago with music...The whole Marilyn Manson case...it's ridiculous to blame musicians or actors or the gaming industry for the violent acts of individuals. People have free will, and their own minds and thought processes, regardless of what anyone can say or suggest, it doesn't MAKE anyone do anything they don't want to do. But, as a scapegoat, they blame these industries and make cases out of them to make themselves look better to their parents, their families, and the public eye.

And it's sad really.
Are you implying that parents should raise their own children??? GASP! Hogwash! Unheard of! :P
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: wicked_lu on November 04, 2010, 11:34:19 AM
Are you implying that parents should raise their own children??? GASP! Hogwash! Unheard of! :P

Haha...I know...it's that little thing called "responsibility" for their children and how they raise them...
And my friend, that is what is unheard of today. Lol.
I have a daughter, and I know I've taught her right from wrong...and would have NO problems with her playing any type of game...She loves watching Gears of War...but I don't see her running around trying to chainsaw anyone. lol.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Enchantermon on November 04, 2010, 01:19:37 PM
Wait...so the schools aren't supposed to raise people's children for them? ??? :P
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: KatieHal on November 04, 2010, 01:22:16 PM
And apparently neither is TV! Geez!  ::)
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: crayauchtin on November 04, 2010, 01:58:04 PM
And apparently neither is TV! Geez!  ::)
Wait! Waitwaitwait!!

If Lady Gaga is not going to raise my children, what is she making music for?? I feel SO misled!
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Blackthorne on November 04, 2010, 02:04:11 PM
We didn't really have violent video games when I was a young warthog.  I mean, the most violent games got, really, as a kid were in "Berserk" when the bad guys "fried" you with laser beams.

There were still kids who were violent bullies, though.  Kids that have a propensity for violence are going to gravitate towards that, whether or not there's video games about it.

And when I was a teen, and Mortal Kombat came out and sparked all kinds of controversy, I'll tell you - the violence didn't increase or decrease.  The bullies were still the same!


Bt

Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: MusicallyInspired on November 04, 2010, 05:20:53 PM
I love the people who say that school shooters know their way around a gun because they've been playing shooters on the computer and xbox for years. As if a keyboard, mouse, or controller is going to make you proficient at firing an actual firearm.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Fierce Deity on November 04, 2010, 07:11:00 PM
I love the people who say that school shooters know their way around a gun because they've been playing shooters on the computer and xbox for years. As if a keyboard, mouse, or controller is going to make you proficient at firing an actual firearm.

However, newer games have wittingly configured the controllers' "trigger buttons" to be the buttons to push if you want to shoot a gun. Coincidence, no?

Joking aside, video games don't truly simulate the experience of shooting a real gun. Games allow you to lock on to your targets, or at least offer aim-assist. When using a real gun, aiming is a lot more than just lining up a reticle. But these prosecutors are just telling parents what they want to hear. Still, the Supreme Court knows better than to trust these nonsensical rants.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: kindofdoon on November 04, 2010, 07:20:16 PM
However, newer games have wittingly configured the controllers' "trigger buttons" to be the buttons to push if you want to shoot a gun. Coincidence, no?

Too funny! XD
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Blackthorne on November 04, 2010, 07:58:49 PM
As someone who's had extensive experience with firearms all my life, I can honestly say that "shooting" video games really do not reflect the experience of using a firearm.

I remember the first time I fired a Kalashnikov (AK-47), and being surprised at how unwieldy it is.  The physical requirements of firing such a weapon are a precise and delicate matter which require much training to use properly.


Bt
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: wilco64256 on November 04, 2010, 08:56:09 PM
Real guns don't come with a reticle 50 feet away to help you aim?  Aw crap...
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: crayauchtin on November 04, 2010, 10:54:22 PM
Real guns don't come with a reticle 50 feet away to help you aim?  Aw crap...
I KNOW. When I learned that, I realized my dreams of mass murder would never come to pass... :P
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Baggins on November 06, 2010, 11:16:58 AM
Quote
I love the people who say that school shooters know their way around a gun because they've been playing shooters on the computer and xbox for years. As if a keyboard, mouse, or controller is going to make you proficient at firing an actual firearm
Ahem, I did my masters research on this topic. To be fair, actually the army does military training on First Person Shooters (among other things). The army has a special version of America's Army used for training for example. Obviously its not a perfect replacement for having an actual gun, and going out and firing the real thing. But there are things that can be learned from it. Thus the army would not use it to replace actual fire arm training. However, some of the more advanced trainers actually has the soldier holding a gun, and aiming it at a screen. Think something like the wii gun addon, but shaped like real rifles.

Does it turn children into killers? No, and those games that have become murderers were probably influenced by external factors such as how parents raise their children, and social factors. They had deep seeded problems beyond the games. Though the games might have amplified those issues. That hardly means every person who plays a game has issues, and will be become murderers. I recommend a book on this subject, Grand Theft Childhood, that discusses this.

Infact from statistics I've read, there have been more murders and violence before Video Games ever existed. There has been less murders in the last decade (this may or may not correlate to video games, and it can't be tested). However, it does beg the question on what did people blame on violence and murder before video games (or before that movies)? It also seems to hint that video games are only a scape goat, and probably have little to do with the rise of violence. Probably not more or less than TV can be an influence.

Infact many murderers do not even play games, so it wouldn't be any influence on who they become.

Back to the military training games, one of the main things that people see may be a problem from military games is that they can be a form of propaganda. That is they might portray the player's character in positive light, while demeaning the enemy forces. Thus it might make the soldier believe they are fighting for just cause, while killing a dehumanize the opfor. So it could promoate racism and bias, because it isn't showing full story on both sides.

One particular use that games have been used for is the purpose of controlling robots, and drones. Infact they have actually recruited gamers into airforce for the purpose of controlling the drones. IRobot designed their robot controllers for the army's scout robot to look like playstation controllers.

Its been seen that drone pilots are more disconnected from their targets, and thus less likely to have remorse for those they kill. This is no different though perhaps more exaggerated example of the same emotional disconnect that a pilot has when dropping bombs, or shooting down other planes. They are fighting from a distance, and not seeing their enemy face to face. It may be even more disconnected in that the screen they look at resembles a monitor for a video game. There have been some who have claimed that it felt just like playing a game when they flew a drone. Insert various L33T speak.

Hmm, for humorous look at violence in video games, check out Pen and Teller's Bullshi*t" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKJj84SQia4


Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: MusicallyInspired on November 06, 2010, 11:39:09 AM
Ahem, I did my masters research on this topic. To be fair, actually the army does military training on First Person Shooters (among other things). The army has a special version of America's Army used for training for example. Obviously its not a perfect replacement for having an actual gun, and going out and firing the real thing. But there are things that can be learned from it. Thus the army would not use it to replace actual fire arm training. However, some of the more advanced trainers actually has the soldier holding a gun, and aiming it at a screen. Think something like the wii gun addon, but shaped like real rifles.

Yes. Military training. Not the average kid who plays video games in his basement bedroom. The kid isn't going to walk away with the same amount of knowledge that trained military personnel are. Plus, they have knowledge beforehand. They don't just sign up for rifle training and get thrown into a video game room. You can't really compare the two.

Back to the military training games, one of the main things that people see may be a problem from military games is that they can be a form of propaganda. That is they might portray the player's character in positive light, while demeaning the enemy forces. Thus it might make the soldier believe they are fighting for just cause, while killing a dehumanize the opfor. So it could promoate racism and bias, because it isn't showing full story on both sides.

That I agree with. And that actually does need to stop in video games.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: darthkiwi on November 06, 2010, 04:09:24 PM
Quote
Back to the military training games, one of the main things that people see may be a problem from military games is that they can be a form of propaganda. That is they might portray the player's character in positive light, while demeaning the enemy forces. Thus it might make the soldier believe they are fighting for just cause, while killing a dehumanize the opfor. So it could promoate racism and bias, because it isn't showing full story on both sides.
I agree, actually. This is not a problem exclusive to games, of course, but any kind of thoughtless depiction of warfare is questionable.

The recently released Medal of Honour game, for example, seems to be an example of not very thoughtful storytelling. The devs decided to go for a fairly simple "These troops are doing their job, let's get them home" message. While I agree with that message to an extent and have the utmost respect for soldiers currently in Afghanistan, any game (or TV show or film or book) which deals with the war in Afghanistan should take a more balanced and incisive view into the war and the motivations of both sides, rather than just whitewash controversy with a "Soldiers are noble and they're our boys" message.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Fierce Deity on November 06, 2010, 05:08:59 PM
I agree, actually. This is not a problem exclusive to games, of course, but any kind of thoughtless depiction of warfare is questionable.

The recently released Medal of Honour game, for example, seems to be an example of not very thoughtful storytelling. The devs decided to go for a fairly simple "These troops are doing their job, let's get them home" message. While I agree with that message to an extent and have the utmost respect for soldiers currently in Afghanistan, any game (or TV show or film or book) which deals with the war in Afghanistan should take a more balanced and incisive view into the war and the motivations of both sides, rather than just whitewash controversy with a "Soldiers are noble and they're our boys" message.

I can agree with this as well. However, the reality of the situation is that these games get enough heat as it is from the media and parents who don't want the games to "negatively influence" their children. I doubt the media will turn a blind eye to a game that says "we have our motives and they have theirs". Suggesting that our opposition in a war is fueled by a just cause is blasphemy among the more patriotic individuals. It's natural to question why a war is being waged, and a rational being can come to the conclusion that both sides are just supporting their beliefs. I just think a game would be banned in a America if it ever depicted our enemies as being anything more than "the scum of the Earth". Still, I agree nonetheless.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: LadyTerra on November 08, 2010, 12:19:27 AM
I found a podcast with an interesting take on the issue.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/podcasts/twing/28496-episode-15-supreme-decisions
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Damar on November 09, 2010, 06:34:59 AM
Interesting article.  And it's good to see that with all the partisan stuff going on, that these justices were pretty much on the same page together in totally picking this guy apart.  Right from the gate even.  He really was not well prepared at all.

From everything I've learned about this debate, it doesn't really seem that there is a debate at all.  Or at least the facts don't support a debate.  Basically it's like Baggins said.  Violence in video games does not seem to create violence in real life.  Of course correlation does not equal causation, so you can't say with certainty that it doesn't (which is the same reason why surgeon general warnings on cigarettes say it may cause cancer.  We all know they do, but it can't be conclusively proven because an actual experiment would be unethical) but the correlation doesn't even seem to be there either when it comes to the violence.  The main issue, I think, becomes the dehumanizing factor.  Video games can desensitize to violence, and certainly some games do dehumanize the enemy.  Or dehumanize in general, which is why I think Grand Theft Auto leaves such a bad taste in some people's mouths.  But when you're dealing with that issue, it becomes more on the parent to have personal responsibility.  Censorship isn't the answer.  The parent can tell the kid that they don't want them playing that game, that's the parent's right, but it's not the governments job to to censor games so that the parents can just shrug off that responsibility.  Because maybe, just maybe, some violent behavior is a cry for attention and if the parent actually, you know, was a parent to their child there wouldn't be the need for attention.

And there's the thing, which is that when you're dealing with ultra violent games and saying it corrupts children, you're missing the bigger picture, which is the parenting.  A parent who lets their young child play explicit, violent games, is most likely an extremely permissive parent.  And an overly permissive parenting style leads to children who are much more likely to act out, experiment with drugs, have sex at an earlier age, and so on.  It's the parenting style, not the games the kid plays, or the music the kid listens to, or the movies the kid watches.  Those are all symptomatic of the parenting style.  It would be like saying the kid is violent or misbehaving because he eats pizza rolls and cake for dinner every night.  Maybe the kid acts out and eats pizza rolls and cake every night because the parent just isn't around and doesn't set boundaries.  Kids need structure and boundaries.  If they don't get it, they will seek them out by misbehaving.  If they still don't get it, the behaviors escalate and it becomes their pattern of behavior.

So the government censoring games and such just doesn't make sense to me and I actually find it offensive.  Not just because it's censorship and removes personal accountability, but also because trying to censor something will usually lead to people wanting it even more.  And that actually lowers the standards of creativity in society.  Something automatically becomes popular simply because people are trying to ban it.  The perfect example would be the far Christian right's attempt to stop the DaVinci Code.  If they had just sat down and shut up, the book never would have been so popular.  The Holy Blood Holy Grail idea is so full of holes that them trying to go against it actually made the theory gain more legitimacy.  So the whole crusade to stop Dan Brown had the following affect: It perpetuated a faulty and historically inaccurate theory, it fed into the idea of a conspiracy theory that the church doesn't want you to know about, it made all Christians look like idiots, and it increased the popularity of a fairly mediocre book.

Oh, and just a side note, Baggins, you had wondered about other things that people said was causing violence and problems before video games, there's any number of things.  Movies, of course, which led to a code of conduct in the 20's.  Also music has always been a big one.  Jazz was seen as destroying society back in the day (though that was also couched in racism).  People find something to fear based on the newest technology.  You even see it with severe mental illness.  Someone with schizophrenia may fear that someone is watching them through the internet.  Before that it was more likely to be the tv.  Before televion, someone was listening through the radio.  Before radio, it was the telegraph beaming orders into their brain.  People already have the problem.  The scapegoat changes, the problem does not.  A hundred years from now (hopefully less) this same argument will be going on involving holographic people.  "You're having sex or "killing" holograms that look like people!  SOCIETY WILL BURN!  THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Baggins on November 09, 2010, 12:29:39 PM
Ya, good post. Ya, music has been blamed for years. It does seem to have an influence, but probably not towards violence (but more towards physical affect on the body). How much of an influece? That is difficult to test.

Grand Theft Chidhood also made the point that more injuries and violence can occur through playing sports such as Football (American Football), but you'd never see people trying to ban the sport. Some studies point out that violent riots that break out over Footbal/Soccer around the world. Obviously people aren't going to ban that game (just because the fans break out into fights over their teams). Of course what about boxing? The physical violence and injury in the case of many sports is institutionalized and enjoyed, and is part of why reason people watch the sports. Despite increasing lean towards nanny system of protecting people from themselves (something that annoys me alot), they allow certain institutional violence. Its hypocricy and looking for scape goats on their part.

Yet, people are more worried about violence that occurs in games, that probably have little influence (other than maybe for those who already have issues due to poor parenting or mental disorders).

Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: wilco64256 on June 27, 2011, 08:30:09 PM
*Ignores topic resurrection warning*

By the powers invested in me, I pronounce this thread RE-BORN!!!

So the decision on this came down today, in favor of the EMA.  No big surprise there, California really has no business trying to step in and regulate an industry when no other similar industries (music, movies, books, etc.) have anything even remotely like this.  We take care of ourselves just fine thank very much, now back the @#(*^@#^ off.  Freedom of speech FTW.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: DawsonJ on June 27, 2011, 10:45:59 PM
It's an interesting debate. I know some who are highly affected by violent games. However, they are just as affected by heavy metal music, violent movies, etc... That's just them. Some aren't obviously affected at all. I would hate to have my access to video games limited by the government, at any level. Sometimes Mortal Kombat just hits the spot.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: glottal on June 28, 2011, 12:25:04 AM
It's an interesting debate. I know some who are highly affected by violent games.

Just curious - what do you mean?  Do violent games cause them distress, or do they make them engage in harmful behaviour.  I strongly support labelling games for violence, because it helps sensitive people avoid the distress, but not limiting access to violent games.  If you mean that the games cause the people to engage in harmful behaviour ... I am interested in more details.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: DawsonJ on June 28, 2011, 09:46:31 PM
I have a tendency to cause arguments, so I'm trying to word this better than some of my other posts. Ok, some I know feel that certain games and movies bother their conscience. Others wish they could do what the characters can do in said games and movies. The dream of being able to protect themselves the way Scorpion can in Mortal Kombat is ideal to them, which is due to being abused throughout their life and feeling unable to stop it. Really my take is that some people aren't changed by violent media, but others are predisposed to violence, or sensitivity to it, for specific reasons. Anger Management problems comes to mind.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: glottal on June 28, 2011, 11:39:44 PM
So you are saying that some people you know are predisposed to violence and violent games have on these people ... what kind of effect?  I do not understand what you are trying to say.

(Note: I am not arguing with you.  I am not simply not sure what you are trying to communicate.  I am interested in what you are trying to say, and am asking for clarification.  If you don't think it's worth your time or effort to clarify, that is your choice).
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: darthkiwi on June 29, 2011, 04:36:24 PM
I have certainly, in my adolescence, experienced feelings of "Wouldn't it be awesome to have, like, a big gun, and, like, a big coat and like, shoot people to loud music!" (Yes, yes, I was frustrated with adolscent life. Who wasn't?) This was all in my head, though, and never affected my actual actions or thoughts towards people; to be honest, it wasn't that games and movies *caused* me to think violent thoughts but, rather, that the naturally explosive thoughts which inevitably go with adolescence simply found expression via the imagery of games and movies; I suspect they would have found some other expression if I'd *not* played those games and seen those movies.

So, perhaps your friends are not driven to violent thoughts by games, but have violent thoughts which are simply expressed via games? Could you tell us a bit more about whether your friends have ever behaved violently, perhaps as a result of games? I realise this is probably coming across as hostile towards you, but I really don't want it to seem like that: I'm really interested in your friends' experience of video games and their effects. And while I suggest that your friends might not have been deeply affected by games, that's just me speaking from my own experience: of course, your friends have probably been affected in different ways to me and I'd love to hear more about how other people experience games and the possible results of that.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: wilco64256 on June 29, 2011, 07:30:00 PM
I think that my experience playing Battlefield: Bad Company has prepared me for any situation where I may find a sniper rifle laying on the ground and I need to pick off some psycho Russian assault troops that are trying to blow up my house.  Definitely.

And I'm certain I'd be really great with a sword.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: snabbott on June 29, 2011, 07:53:22 PM
...as long as they can be controlled by a keyboard, mouse, and/or other game controller. ;)
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: KatieHal on June 29, 2011, 08:14:40 PM
Those are some of the reasons I like jiu jitsu and roleplaying games. I can let out my violent urges in productive and fun ways!  :ninja:
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Deloria on June 30, 2011, 05:34:53 AM
I have certainly, in my adolescence, experienced feelings of "Wouldn't it be awesome to have, like, a big gun, and, like, a big coat and like, shoot people to loud music!"
Please tell me that, even then, you were a civilised, cultivated intellectual who didn't use "like" as a filler :P

I think that my experience playing Battlefield: Bad Company has prepared me for any situation where I may find a sniper rifle laying on the ground and I need to pick off some psycho Russian assault troops that are trying to blow up my house.  Definitely.

And I'm certain I'd be really great with a sword.
XD This is the best post ever. :P
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: darthkiwi on June 30, 2011, 01:59:27 PM
Quote
Please tell me that, even then, you were a civilised, cultivated intellectual who didn't use "like" as a filler

I didn't actually think the word "like" back then either; then, as now, I loathe the use of the word. I applied it retrospectively to get across how silly it was :P
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: LadyTerra on July 06, 2011, 07:23:01 PM
Quote
Please tell me that, even then, you were a civilised, cultivated intellectual who didn't use "like" as a filler

I didn't actually think the word "like" back then either; then, as now, I loathe the use of the word. I applied it retrospectively to get across how silly it was :P

I, like, totally get what you mean.  Like, totally in the tubular sense, dude.   ;D

I'm also curious as to how your friends were affected, Dawson.  In a way, I was affected by violent video games as a kid, particularly Mortal Kombat: it helped me release my anger in a safe and constructive way.  I used to have terrible anger management problems, and video games gave me an outlet.

After re-reading Damar's post, I recalled an exhibit in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum about the political propaganda against rock, and it was identical to what's happening with video games.  On a funny note, there was also a quote from Socrates about how music destroyed young minds.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: DawsonJ on July 07, 2011, 12:35:53 AM
Ok. I have a really rough time explaining myself, which tends to piss people off online and IRL. So bear with me.
I'll use myself as an example. Generally, I suck at video games, so I rely heavily on Action Replay, GameShark, and, back in the day, Game Genie.

But with fighting games, I tend to break things more and get more violent, when I lose. Recently, I was playing Hulk: Ultimate Destruction on GameCube. When I lost, I would imagine some especially violent things to do to someone. I eventually threw the game in the garbage, just to control myself. Also, I used to play violent games with a friend. We would start threatening each other as we played 1-on-1 fighters, like SF and MK. Those threats very nearly became a reality.

However, when I play Mario Kart with friends, I'm not nearly as angry when I lose.

I'm the same way with hard music, too. Nickelback and Disturbed progressively alter my mood, within 3 songs. I ended up tossing a lot of my music collection, for that reason.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Fierce Deity on July 07, 2011, 12:58:43 AM
Ok. I have a really rough time explaining myself, which tends to piss people off online and IRL. So bear with me.
I'll use myself as an example. Generally, I suck at video games, so I rely heavily on Action Replay, GameShark, and, back in the day, Game Genie.

But with fighting games, I tend to break things more and get more violent, when I lose. Recently, I was playing Hulk: Ultimate Destruction on GameCube. When I lost, I would imagine some especially violent things to do to someone. I eventually threw the game in the garbage, just to control myself. Also, I used to play violent games with a friend. We would start threatening each other as we played 1-on-1 fighters, like SF and MK. Those threats very nearly became a reality.

However, when I play Mario Kart with friends, I'm not nearly as angry when I lose.

I'm the same way with hard music, too. Nickelback and Disturbed progressively alter my mood, within 3 songs. I ended up tossing a lot of my music collection, for that reason.

I don't mean to mock you or insult you when I ask this, but I think it helps illustrate the defense of the case. After playing a game, would you take a gun and shoot up a school?

Changing your attitude and becoming frustrated is one thing. I've never seen a case where a kid was so weak-minded that a video game convinced him to kill another human being. I think a lot of these prosecutors are just sick and tired of being bad at their job and are trying to hop on a bandwagon that they think will take them somewhere. They know nothing about what they speak of, and clearly are grasping at straws. If they at least took a look at the people they are affecting, maybe they will realize that they are on the losing end of the case.

Sorry if I offended anybody with my above question. It's exactly the kind of question that a prosecutor would use against video games, so it's only right I fight fire with fire. We have a right to get angry, we're only human. However, we have moral fiber that restrains us from our animal instincts. Game on, my fellow brothers!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Enchantermon on July 07, 2011, 06:40:05 AM
However, we have moral fiber that restrains us from our animal instincts.
Typically? Yes. But it's perfectly clear that our moral fiber isn't enough to stop people from murdering one another. Take Caylee Anthony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony), for example. Let's not start an argument about the outcome of the trial for those who have been keeping up; I'm just trying to make a point. No matter who is at fault, it's clear that someone murdered a beautiful two-year-old girl. Who could do such a thing? Surely our high moral fiber would prevent such a horrible act from occurring.....right?
The thing is, everyone is psychologically different. But just because I can play violent video games and not have the desire to kill someone doesn't mean that everyone can. I'm incredibly sensitive to correction and rejection because of things that happened in my early childhood. Those things act like a trigger for older memories and scars that I've carried for a long time. Likewise, there are likely people for whom violent video games (or movies, TV shows, what have you) are a trigger for repressed emotions or a reminder of things in their past that bring up harsh feelings. It's just psychologically who they are. Now there's nothing wrong with that, as long as they can control themselves; everyone is allowed to feel anger and sadness and regret. But some things could push a person over the edge, and such a thing could be video games.
Consider some people who become obsessed, even to the point of death (http://www.kensavage.com/archives/another-kid-dies-from-playing-online-game/), with games like World of Warcraft. People have died in real life because they became so engrossed and obsessed with the game that they didn't pay attention to their own health. That is an enormous emotional investment. How could you become so focused on a video game that you completely lose touch with your body's own signals telling you that you need food and sleep? Again, I think it depends on the type of person she was. Maybe she didn't have any friends in the real world. Maybe she was bullied at school or had an atrocious home life and so she used World of Warcraft as her escape from reality. Or, conversely, maybe she was a person who was committed to seeing everything she did through to the end. That's not a bad trait at all, but perhaps she also tended to put that trait above anything and everything else, including her health. Whatever it was that caused her to neglect herself, World of Warcraft was the trigger for it.

Now I say all that to say this: video games are not to blame. The WoW girl could have just as easily found something else to obsess in that would have also led to her demise. It just happened to be WoW this time. The point I'm trying to make is that while we do have a moral fiber within our being that helps us distinguish right from wrong, there are times when certain things could trigger emotions or psychological distress within us that could be difficult to control. The mind is a strange beast. But every person is different and video games are certainly not the only thing that could be triggers. So it's not the fault of game developers, publishers or sellers. Everyone is responsible for him/herself. Do your best to know yourself, keep yourself in check and know your limits. Watch yourself. DawsonJ illustrated this point beautifully; he gets frustrated to the point of physical violence when playing fighting games. But he realized how destructive that behavior is, so he keeps it in check by not playing those games, and perhaps it's for the best that he made that decision. I'm not saying that there's something psychologically "wrong" with him, just that violent games are triggering something in him that is violent, to a greater extent than they might for other people. He knows his limits, and everyone needs to be responsible enough to know theirs.

As an aside, this is the point that people are getting hung up on when the debate about violent video games comes up. Many people point to game developers saying, "You shouldn't make games like that!" These are the same type of people who point to fast food restaurants and say, "You shouldn't make fatty foods like that!" Why not? They have every right to, and you and everyone else has the right to not buy such games or eat such food. It all comes down to a matter of control. Everyone needs to control themselves. Parents need to control their children while teaching them to control themselves. "Everything in moderation" is a wonderful rule. But sometimes people are so afraid of over-indulgence that they try to remove temptation instead of learning to be responsible for themselves and for what they play and eat and do and think. And that's the real issue here.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Fierce Deity on July 07, 2011, 07:41:48 AM
A very good point Enchantermon. I said what I said about moral fiber, more or less, to soften the blow about what I said earlier in my post. I try not to get on an offensive or defensive stance with this debate, because so much comes into play. But when I take one side, I feel like I have to look "on the other hand". Truthfully, everyone should be responsible for their own actions, and anyone who would quickly turn to a scapegoat to try and save their own hide for killing someone or destabilizing the balance of things is psychologically disturbed. No doubt about that. I for one think that you can't blame something on an institution that clearly works for the majority moreso than the handful of kids who are strung out socially or mentally. Everyone is wired differently, but why treat everyone as the weakest link?

For instance, a kid plays a violent video game, and feels like today is the day for redemption. He gets loaded on drugs and alcohol, loads up a .09 millimeter, and takes out an entire school. Why should this be stemmed back to video games? Clearly, he was already mentally unstable, and had easy access to drugs, alcohol, guns, and ammunition. So if they penalize the game industry because of an unfortunate outcome, is that supposed to bring back the lives that were lost? Is the rate of school shootings going to decrease? Will life all of a sudden get better for everyone? Bullying, parenting, and depression all take a part in the hypothetical situation, but video games is clearly a copout for them.

Which leads me back to saying that this case has nothing to do with the safety of the children or the world. It's about winning a war that they aren't a part of. It's about money. If people truly cared enough, they would go to parents, teachers, and the leaders of the world to set an example for children rather than have kids grow up with stress, depression, and a lack of self esteem. They always tell kids "Life will get better after high school is over", but for some, they can't wait that long.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Enchantermon on July 07, 2011, 08:03:05 AM
I get you. Sorry about the soapbox by the way; this is one of the things that I get kind of fired up about.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Fierce Deity on July 07, 2011, 08:20:59 AM
No worries. I hear ya. This stuff gets pretty intense when "preaching to the choir" so to speak, much less debating with conflicting views.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: DawsonJ on July 07, 2011, 10:02:37 PM
@Fierce Deity: No, I wouldn't take a firearm to a school.

And, for clarification, I've been heavily abused my whole life. Therefore, my personal experience is different than most. For example, there was a scene where Superman was nearly murdered in the Superman Returns movie which set off all those feelings of abuse and pain in me. So I refuse to watch that movie again. I know a rape victim who went into a flashback at the theater during Titanic, due to one of the scenes in the movie. Hence, your life experiences dictate your reaction. Each person needs to learn moderation and learn to avoid what affects them.

According to what I've heard from various gamers over the years, it sounds like just as many things get broken over The Incredible Machine as Diablo. For me, my weakness is fighting games, because of my experiences. It's been said that many people have felt depressed after watching Avatar or Pokémon because they couldn't really live in those worlds. That's personal, not a typical problem.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Fierce Deity on July 08, 2011, 04:14:48 AM
@Fierce Deity: No, I wouldn't take a firearm to a school.

That's exactly what I was hoping to point out. Personal experiences can resurface no matter where you are, but as long as we can keep our emotions in check, violence may never become an option. I was solely trying to point out the flaw in a prosecutor's argument. I meant no offense, and I hope this remains a professional and cordial debate.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Damar on July 08, 2011, 07:28:37 AM
It's true that some people can be sensitive to certain things due to their past and in people who have been abused or had other things occur, violence can trigger flashbacks (if they have PTSD) or just a general fight or flight response which can then lead to irritability.  That said, though, like Fierce Deity pointed out, that doesn't mean that the person will get violent and actually do someone harm.

And really, whether the person tends to get more violent or not, that doesn't mean that the games should be changed.  It means that the person should look at treatment.  The world is what it is and there will always be triggers.  It's our responsibility to learn to cope with those triggers.  As another example, if someone had alcoholism, beer commercials could definitely be a trigger.  That said, we shouldn't ban beer commercials from the television because it can trigger people.  Alcoholism may be a disease, but it's on the person to cope with the world in which they live, not to reshape the world to conform to their disease.  If I have diabetes, I won't eat cake.  But I won't insist that cake be banned either.

And even in the cases of an actual disease like PTSD, while the triggers may be real, there is still personal responsibility to either avoid hot button issues like violent games, or if someone truly cannot control themselves when in an episode, to seek help and make sure they are properly medicated and receiving therapeutic support so that the control in their life can be regained.

Oh, and as a quick aside, cases like Casey Anthony are a minority mainly because she's a sociopath (whether you think she did it or not, it seems to be conclusively proven that she has no empathy, she's a compulsive liar, and she cares about nothing but her own enjoyment and what she needs).  When we talk about the moral fiber in humanity, sociopaths become an outlier.  The average person doesn't step too far outside the societal moral code.  People with antisocial personality disorder specifically will because they see rules as something that don't apply to them and that are made to be broken so they can get ahead.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Big C from Cauney island on July 08, 2011, 08:05:09 AM
Video games don't make people violent.  My Human development class says statistically that it has been proven, but I still don't believe it.  It takes more than that to make people snap.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: wilco64256 on July 08, 2011, 09:37:04 AM
If people are doomed to replicate what they do in video games then shouldn't we have seen a huge number of incidents of people jumping on each other when Super Mario Bros. came out?
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Enchantermon on July 08, 2011, 07:45:11 PM
(http://v.cdn.cad-comic.com/comics/cad-20080806-1f7d7.jpg)
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Damar on July 09, 2011, 07:57:35 PM
Yeah, that's not really the kind of thing you can conclusively prove as it would require a control group and it's kind of unethical to center an experiment around potentially making people more violent.  Odds are what's been shown is a correlation between violent video games (or violent media in general) and aggressive behavior.

But "aggressive behavior" can encompass anything including simple irritability.  Heck, in that case there's a correlation between too much coffee and aggressive behavior when it comes to me.  And regardless of how something makes you feel, we can stop ourselves from being violent.  I might be more likely to feel irritable after playing a violent game (probably not though) but no matter how irritable I am I'm not going to actually act out what I've seen or take that irritability to an extreme.  If that were the case I'd go on a murdering spree every time I had a stressful day at work.  Which would totally affect my paycheck, incidentally.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: glottal on July 09, 2011, 09:43:46 PM
And correlation is not causation.  If there is a correlation between violent behavior and violent video gaming, I think it's more likely that violent people like violent video games, not that violent video games make people violent.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: wilco64256 on July 09, 2011, 10:54:16 PM
I agree - if correlation equals causation then I could easily prove that eating bread causes people to be violent as well.  In fact I'd be willing to bet that violent people are more likely to have eaten bread within 24 hours of committing a violent act than playing a violent video game.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Fierce Deity on July 09, 2011, 11:27:19 PM
I agree - if correlation equals causation then I could easily prove that eating bread causes people to be violent as well.  In fact I'd be willing to bet that violent people are more likely to have eaten bread within 24 hours of committing a violent act than playing a violent video game.

This. Totally, 100% THIS. It's just as likely, and it can't be proven otherwise. Just like violent video games making violent people. There are violent people out there who don't play video games, but chances are, they eat bread.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: glottal on July 10, 2011, 01:26:15 AM
Technically, there would only be a correlation between eating bread and violent people if violent people were more likely to eat bread that non-violent people.

By the way, *I* don't eat bread.  I definitely have not eaten any bread in the last six months, and it's even possible that I haven't eaten bread in the past year (I can't be sure because it's not the kind of thing I keep track of).  I eat rice instead.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Fierce Deity on July 10, 2011, 02:35:41 AM
By the way, *I* don't eat bread.  I definitely have not eaten any bread in the last six months, and it's even possible that I haven't eaten bread in the past year (I can't be sure because it's not the kind of thing I keep track of).  I eat rice instead.

For the sake of argument, would you state whether or not you have been acting out violently within the last six months, or possibly within the past year?
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: glottal on July 10, 2011, 03:00:35 AM
By the way, *I* don't eat bread.  I definitely have not eaten any bread in the last six months, and it's even possible that I haven't eaten bread in the past year (I can't be sure because it's not the kind of thing I keep track of).  I eat rice instead.

For the sake of argument, would you state whether or not you have been acting out violently within the last six months, or possibly within the past year?

Generally I have not been acting violently.  For that matter, most people around here don't eat much bread (rice is much more popular), and the violent crime rate is quite low.  Hmmm ... maybe there really is a connection between eating bread and violence :P
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Enchantermon on July 11, 2011, 08:44:15 AM
And correlation is not causation.  If there is a correlation between violent behavior and violent video gaming, I think it's more likely that violent people like violent video games, not that violent video games make people violent.
Quoted for truth.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Fierce Deity on July 11, 2011, 03:50:23 PM
By the way, *I* don't eat bread.  I definitely have not eaten any bread in the last six months, and it's even possible that I haven't eaten bread in the past year (I can't be sure because it's not the kind of thing I keep track of).  I eat rice instead.

For the sake of argument, would you state whether or not you have been acting out violently within the last six months, or possibly within the past year?

Generally I have not been acting violently.  For that matter, most people around here don't eat much bread (rice is much more popular), and the violent crime rate is quite low.  Hmmm ... maybe there really is a connection between eating bread and violence :P

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we just won our first case.  ;D
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: liggy002 on July 26, 2011, 01:11:42 PM
Those Supreme Court folks should play through the Dragon Age games.  I'm sure they would just love that.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
Post by: Fierce Deity on July 26, 2011, 06:50:46 PM
Some friends and I were debating whether or not we should make a skit that pokes fun of the bloody gore in the Dragon Age games. We were going to have someone step on a bug, and then have blood splattered all over his face. Amazing how far they took that mechanic.