Violence in Games

M4lV · 2008-04-17T12:55:02

It's not like a bazaar lol, just I know again from my own experience that we had a guy even in our class that not only possessed a pistol, but also bought one for a friend of him at class because he wanted one too. I had actually seen them carrying the weapons and heard them shooting it in a nearby forest one-time. It's just, you can get a weapon if you got enough money and school's the place where you might find the "right guy", that's what I meant. Can also be other places.The best thing is, no one cared about that. All my class knew it and nothing ever happened.

GDNet Lounge Community

Started by coderlt00 April 12, 2008 11:26 PM

178 comments, last by ApochPiQ 16 years ago

demonkoryu

980

April 16, 2008 09:24 AM

Quote:Original post by Fantus69
Won't somebody PLEEEAAASE think of the Children?!! Give it a rest. You weren't talking about children when you said enjoying a certain type of game put people in a "shady light." (slippery slope)
And another thing, I don't need to have a specific "monster" character to be able to distance myself from games. Unreal situations, (like those presented in Manhunt, GTA et al) can provide a similar escape.

Manhunt and GTA aren't unreal by a kids view. I the first you are a brute, in the second you drive cars and roll over passers-by.

Quote:And The Suffering is all about choice, for example if you help other inmates you get the good ending(you were innocent) and if you're a git and don't help them you get the bad ending(you killed your family while in "monster" mode) so you do play a human with a choice. So there.

Even better if you have a choice. In Manhunt, you (as a player) don't. You just have to play along.

Quote:And could you cite your "proofs" please? I can't find any studies that aren't "maybes" "perhapses" or "could possibly" scenarios.

Search harder.

Quote:Keep games away from kids: Hide them in schoolbooks!

Better yet, keep them occupied outside.

demonkoryu

980

April 16, 2008 09:30 AM

Quote:Original post by DrEvil
Ban them from your own house, and from your own children. Past that you have no right to determine what other people can or can't enjoy, especially based on some bullshit theory that the players of such games are somehow 'shady',

It's not a theory, it's just my view of such people.

Quote:or that there even exists any significant amount of evidence that they cause any real harm to anyone at all,

No, anyone being fucked up enough to go on a killing spree was probably fucked up before. Them playing Manhunt etc. is obviously totally disconnected from the events that happened.

Quote:especially to a group of people(kids) that have no business playing them in the first place.

But they will.

Quote:The problem is not the existence of the games, and therefore the solution is not to completely ban them for everyone.

No, the problem is that such games are being bought.

Quote:The industry is doing what they need to do,

I know it's a harsh business.

Quote:the rest is up to the peoples personal(especially parental)responsibility.

Which I am hereby excercising.

demonkoryu

980

April 16, 2008 09:33 AM

Quote:Original post by Extrarius
Quote:Original post by Konfusius
[...]Exactly, I want it banned because of it's sickness and probability to be seen by children and the damage they will take from it.
[...]I AM TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN NOT ABOUT ADULTS
You do understand what "banned' means, right? If something is banned, _NOBODY_ can play it, because it isn't allowed. Are you honestly willing to sacrifice all the games you love in order to make it imperceptably more difficult to be a completely horrible parent? That is what you're advocating - if you allow a few to decide for the many (as you would with some kind of mandatory rating system that could result in some games being banned), you also give up your ability to decide what is good and what is not for yourself. If somebody is going to be a bad parent, they're going to do it whether or not games of any particular category exist.

Damn straight. It would one thing less about which I had to worry as a parent. And one bad thing less if I was a bad parent.

demonkoryu

980

April 16, 2008 09:35 AM

Quote:Original post by Raghar
Quote:Original post by Konfusius
Even that's only part of the problem.
Children are sensitive and just easily impressed and misled by something they see/experience/do on screen, even when they're not addicted to it.

Majority of children are wicked bastards, the few children that are sensitive could be sensitive even as adults...

Children are born sensitive. They are becoming numb with bad experience.

Quote:If you are talking about US children, which are considered as 1. over nannied

Seems to be a good place for children.

Quote:2. completely incompetent and/or making lame excuses, by the rest of the world, then you should explain, why children should suffer in the rest of the world, just because US children are considered unable to survive that few games, which theirs parents should never buy.

I don't understand.

DrEvil

1,151

April 16, 2008 10:13 AM

Quote:Original post by Konfusius
No, anyone being fucked up enough to go on a killing spree was probably fucked up before. Them playing Manhunt etc. is obviously totally disconnected from the events that happened.

smartest thing you said all thread.

Quote:
Quote:especially to a group of people(kids) that have no business playing them in the first place.

But they will.

That's where parental responsibility comes in. You don't get these games for your kid, and you take an active role in what your kid is doing.

Quote:
No, the problem is that such games are being bought.

So what? That is not a problem in the least. Millions of people enjoy graphic and violent games, just as they do graphic and violent movies and other media. You think because once in a blue moon a school shooting or similar occurs, that the media or parents happen to blame games for, even though in most cases there ends up being no meaningful connection, often even flat out lying from the media about the kids involvement in games. Only an idiot would make the leap as to desire a ban on these products for everyone of all ages, based on some distant and often false connection between the game and the act itself.

Playing violent games doesn't make one violent, period. No matter how realistic they are. Fucked up people are very likely to be drawn to these games by virtue of their problem, but games do not represent a causal relationship with real world violence. If they did these real life acts would be far more common, considering the enormous number of people that play these games.

Quote:
Quote:the rest is up to the peoples personal(especially parental)responsibility.

Which I am hereby excercising.

No you aren't. You're trying to push your flawed view of game violence on the rest of the world by saying they should be banned for everyone, just because you want to be a lazy parent.

Here's some help understanding what personal responsibility is. Such responsibility would obviously include that which you are responsible for caring for, such as your children.

Omni-Bot: My game/mod independant AI bot framework.

M4lV

100

April 16, 2008 10:19 AM

what has lazyness to do if you got no time left over the day?

Being a parent was once (and still is today in old-fashioned families) a full-time job that mostly mothers carried out being classified as housewives. Now you wanna tell me a somehow troubled kid that is left alone the whole day refrains from somehow "organizing" a copy of those games via god knows what sources and plays it and even becomes addicted to it, maybe even acting out in real life what they act out on screen. I don't think you can just rule that out as impossible and solely the responsibility of parents. I know, they probably shouldn't have gotten a child in the first place if they got no time raising it but shit happens so to speak (kidding ;)). I'm speaking of troubled kids with an inherited affiliation to violence and bad manners only.

[Edited by - M4lV on April 16, 2008 10:19:25 AM]

DrEvil

1,151

April 16, 2008 12:07 PM

For the record, I wouldn't be opposed to something that would result in enforcement of ESRB ratings and prevent sale to minors. Thus far every bill introduced has vastly overstepped those bounds and was rightly struck down.

I'm not even going to respond to your hypothetical fucked up kid being left alone all day with only games, with all the assumptions you are already making. You're creating a directed question by framing a situation of complete child neglect. Even the school shooters don't come from that kind of fictional environment. I'm not saying those situations don't exist, but that you have to even manufacture such a 'what if' is clear indication that games are the least of the problem. I could pull another similar hypothetical situation out of my ass too in order to make a case for banning just about anything. That doesn't change the fact that the responsibility lies with the parents. Regardless of whatever excuses of busy parents you can come up with parents are by law responsible for their children.

Your line of thinking is a very big problem we face today. Nobody wants to take responsibility for what their action, inaction, or uninvolvement in their childs life may have contributed to. Everyone is looking for something to blame, but never themselves. Magnified by the retard media jumping at any chance to scare monger with misreporting the facts and misleading the public, and you get a society of idiots that think they should ban something that tens of millions of people harmlessly enjoy, for an insignificant number of child/teen violence cases that aren't even meaningfully linked to the banned material. There is no logic or justification for such stupidity.

Omni-Bot: My game/mod independant AI bot framework.

Stab-o-tron

332

April 16, 2008 12:42 PM

Quote:Original post by Konfusius
Manhunt and GTA aren't unreal by a kids view. I the first you are a brute, in the second you drive cars and roll over passers-by.

I think that you severely underestimate the intelligence of children. While I agree that they absolutely should not be playing games like GTA and Manhunt, I think children, with the exception of very small children (i.e. toddlers), have the ability to tell the difference between video games and real life.

I must have been about 9/10 years old when Mortal Kombat came out, and was more than capable of determining that 1) It was not real, and 2) The behaviour displayed in the video game was absolutely not acceptable in real life.

I was about 9 years old when I saw the film Predator (which really isn't suitable for a child that age). Again, I was perfectly able to distinguish the film from real life.

Quote:Original post by M4lV
what has lazyness to do if you got no time left over the day?

Being a parent was once (and still is today in old-fashioned families) a full-time job that mostly mothers carried out being classified as housewives. Now you wanna tell me a somehow troubled kid that is left alone the whole day

I don't know what the laws are like where you live, but in the UK, leaving a child under the age of 15/16 in the house on their own would be considered neglect, and could lead to criminal prosecution, and depending on the circumstances, having your children put into care.

Someone that leaves a small child in the house on their own is a very shitty parent full stop.

If we're going to go down the road of legislating unrelated things to protect children from neglectful parents, then we should probably also pass laws mandating that all kitchen knives be as blunt as butter knives, lest someone leave their child in the house on their own.

M4lV

100

April 16, 2008 01:33 PM

We are not talking about 1-4 year olds, they can't play computer games anyway. 8-16 year olds do. And if one parent raises those kids on his/her own like it is not uncommon, he or she can't be there in the house the whole day long without being unemployed so stop putting me into the "makes too much and too wild ifs"-corner.

Your assumption of kids having someone all day long around is so much not what it is like today that it kinda freaks me out to be honest. I know lots of troubled kids from my school when I remember that roamed streets the whole day since they got nobody at home. Others stayed at their computer and noone cared. Don't know where you got up but you definitely underestimate the situation. And to pay nannies is way too expensive for a single-parent household.

Anyway, even if I make a lot of ifs, in the end there are people like that. They are not void assumptions. And industry has to take a part in finding a solution in order to deal with them along with everybody else in the society, not only the parents. Why do you keep bashing them? That's exactly like others bash the industry. What does that bring the actual troubled child and me if I or my kid gets shot by such a loser. Damn, that's what society is there for to at least recognize the problem and try to solve, not put the blame on one group or one guy (like it is done so often). And industry is a part of society hence needs to sit down and find a constructive solution that includes measures to keep children get addicted. And don't tell me my methods I proposed would not exactly do that (unaffecting the adults even). What's easier today than analysing even teamspeak and sort out people. That's what's done commercially in every customer database, sort out what they like. Now just transfer to the simple task of dividing a group up into 2 parts, kids and adults. Damn, that shouldn't be too hard should it?

Stab-o-tron

332

April 16, 2008 01:57 PM

I'm not talking about 1-4 year olds either. In the UK you would get in serious trouble for leaving even a 10 year old child alone in the house all day. And yeah, it kind of is the parent's job to parent their child. That's what being a parent means.

Also, why would the child be in the house all day during the week? If the parents aren't sending the child to school, then again, that's a very serious issue.

Quote:Original post by M4lV
That's what's done commercially in every customer database, sort out what they like. Now just transfer to the simple task of dividing a group up into 2 parts, kids and adults. Damn, that shouldn't be too hard should it?

The number of groups you have to sort people into, has very little bearing on whether the problem is hard or not. You are artificially simplifying the problem a lot.

There are heuristics you could use when analysing someone's text, to determine whether or not they're a child, but they're not reliable.

I'm sure dyslexic adults would just love being booted from a game, because they made too many spelling mistakes in team chat, and the game mistook them for a child.

Since the games industry is now responsible for the proper parenting of children, why stop there? Why not analyse teamspeak to detect if children are being beaten by their parents? After all, there are only two groups to sort people into, so it must be really easy.

Violence in Games

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Violence in Games

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines