Author Topic: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming  (Read 27295 times)

Offline wilco64256

  • Omnipotent Being
  • *********
  • Posts: 3978
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #20 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...
Weldon Hathaway

Offline crayauchtin

  • Crystal Dragon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2726
  • Gender: Male
  • He of Many Aliases
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #21 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
"If your translation is correct, that was 'May a sleepy hippopotamus lie down on your house keys,' but you’re not sure. Unfortunately, your fluency in griffin-speak is too low."

We're roleplaying in the King's Quest world: come join in the fun!

Offline Baggins

  • Read-Only
  • Magical Genie
  • *
  • Posts: 2554
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #22 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


« Last Edit: November 06, 2010, 11:27:16 AM by Baggins »
Well, ya, King's Quest is on Earth. Daventry is very old city from a long time ago. It's in ruins now and people aren't quite sure exactly where it used to be. There are some archaeologists searching through the ruins, they think they know its Daventry. But its somewhere on Earth."-Roberta Williams http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/File:Daventryisearth.ogg

Offline MusicallyInspired

  • Powerful Wizard
  • ******
  • Posts: 955
  • Gender: Male
    • BrandonBlume.com - Freelance Music Services
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #23 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.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2010, 11:42:02 AM by MusicallyInspired »

Offline darthkiwi

  • Staff
  • Powerful Wizard
  • ***
  • Posts: 958
  • Gender: Male
  • Imagine that I've written something witty here.
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #24 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.
Prince of the Aquitaine. Duke of York.

Knight errant and consort to Her Grace the Empress Deloria of the Holy Roman Empire, Queene of all Albion and Princess Palatine.

Offline Fierce Deity

  • Powerful Wizard
  • ******
  • Posts: 1506
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #25 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.
Freudian Slip - "When you say one thing, but mean your mother."

Offline LadyTerra

  • Powerful Wizard
  • ******
  • Posts: 957
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #26 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
I have my cake and eat it too, until it's gone.  Then I can't do either.


Aww!  You have the Sword of Hugging +3!  All of your attacks deal affectionate damage!

Offline Damar

  • Royal Heir
  • ****
  • Posts: 493
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #27 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!"

Offline Baggins

  • Read-Only
  • Magical Genie
  • *
  • Posts: 2554
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #28 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).

Well, ya, King's Quest is on Earth. Daventry is very old city from a long time ago. It's in ruins now and people aren't quite sure exactly where it used to be. There are some archaeologists searching through the ruins, they think they know its Daventry. But its somewhere on Earth."-Roberta Williams http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/File:Daventryisearth.ogg

Offline wilco64256

  • Omnipotent Being
  • *********
  • Posts: 3978
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #29 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.
Weldon Hathaway

Offline DawsonJ

  • Great Oracle
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #30 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.

Offline glottal

  • Devoted Knight
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #31 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.

Offline DawsonJ

  • Great Oracle
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #32 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.

Offline glottal

  • Devoted Knight
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #33 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).

Offline darthkiwi

  • Staff
  • Powerful Wizard
  • ***
  • Posts: 958
  • Gender: Male
  • Imagine that I've written something witty here.
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #34 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.
Prince of the Aquitaine. Duke of York.

Knight errant and consort to Her Grace the Empress Deloria of the Holy Roman Empire, Queene of all Albion and Princess Palatine.

Offline wilco64256

  • Omnipotent Being
  • *********
  • Posts: 3978
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #35 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.
Weldon Hathaway

Offline snabbott

  • Beta Tester
  • Global Moderator
  • Phoenix Groupie
  • *****
  • Posts: 5250
  • Gender: Male
  • Fairy tales do come true!
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #36 on: June 29, 2011, 07:53:22 PM »
...as long as they can be controlled by a keyboard, mouse, and/or other game controller. ;)

Steve Abbott | Beta Tester | The Silver Lining

Offline KatieHal

  • Designer, Public Relations Director
  • Administrator
  • Phoenix Groupie
  • *****
  • Posts: 6561
  • Gender: Female
  • Snark Advocate
    • Phoenix Online Studios
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #37 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:

Katie Hallahan
~Designer, PR Director~

"Change is the constant, the signal for rebirth, the egg of the phoenix." Christina Baldwin

I have a blog!

Offline Deloria

  • Staff
  • Phoenix Honour Guard
  • ***
  • Posts: 15197
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #38 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
 
Holy Roman Empress
Queen of *all* Albion
Précieuse and salonnière! :D
"In cases of doubt about language, it is ordinarily best to consult women."-Vaugelas
Space! :D Extraterrestrium! :D Espace! :D

Offline darthkiwi

  • Staff
  • Powerful Wizard
  • ***
  • Posts: 958
  • Gender: Male
  • Imagine that I've written something witty here.
Re: The Supreme Court and Violence in Gaming
« Reply #39 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
Prince of the Aquitaine. Duke of York.

Knight errant and consort to Her Grace the Empress Deloria of the Holy Roman Empire, Queene of all Albion and Princess Palatine.
 

anything