The influence of games

Remove all ads!

Below is the link to a news story featuring a 17 year old detained for life for killing a 14 year old with a knife and a claw. The victim's parents blamed a suggestively titled computer game, Manhunt, with which the offender was obsessed. The court decided the motive was fear of retribution from a gang to whom the offender owed money. Still, the influence of the game isn't really questionned, but rather the extent thereof, although a possibility stands that the game isn't even relevant to what happened.

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/12971622?source=EveningStandard

At first glance, it may seem pretty obvious to us: the kid was caught in the clutches of a game glamourising violence in its worst form and even if he killed for money and out of fear, it's the game which is ultimately responsible.

Really? I've been playing RPG games. Does it make me cast spells in real life? Or did playing Age of Empires 2 for hours and hours make me think
I am a mediaeval general? It's rather my own interests, fantasy for one and history for the other, what brought me to those games. If we take a random angsty teenager involved with street gangs and such, he will more likely choose bloodbathing FPS than anything else.

Of course, what draws what is an important concern, but still doesn't solve the problem of the extent to which playing certain games may affect one's personality. It's like with cigarettes: either you want to check how it feels, or they catch you with an advertisement, but it's the smoking that gets you lung cancer and not your curiosity or their commercials.

It's a widely observed fact that people pick up knowledge, ideas, concepts, outlooks or even skills from books, movies, magazines and the like. Same for multimedia presentations or websites which serve the same purpose. Then why not from games? After all, it's no less passive reception of textual and graphical material, optimised for immersion. Playing certain kinds of games is proven to help develop certain types of thinking or of intelligence: narrowly understood IQ, spatial intelligence, abstract thinking, perception, hand-to-eye coordination, reflexes, seeing the big picture, whatever applies. Why, then, wouldn't it affect aspects of an individual's personality in the same manner? Games with lots of action are typically intense on emotions, for good or for bad, and that leaves marks as any other experience of strong or intense emotions in one's life, effectively carving the character to some extent.

The above is probably not so much of a problem with adults or with kids that are being brought up properly, but troubles arise when it comes to unsupervised kids. The idea is not that the very launching of the game leaves N bad ideas and emotions in their heads, that would be ridiculous, but rather that countless hours of exposition do the job, aided by relative importance of a suggestive, immersing game in the life of an otherwise bored teenager. Sometimes it's good - or at least better than reasonably expected effects of the same teenager roaming the streets with other bored teenagers. Sometimes it isn't.

I'm not a fan of censorship. Neither am I a fan of sheltered upbringing. I've played lots of games of various kinds and never switched gore off in any one of them, or anything such. Still, I can't deny I've seen all too many 12-13 year old boys in camouflage clothing, addressing and talking back to elders in a way deserving a slap through their face. Displaying hyperactivity and levels of concentration dangerous to normal functioning of the organism, let alone hand shivers when being removed from the computer, hysterical reactions when their attention is being demanded and so on.

Of course, if those kids were supervised properly, the problem would likely not exist or at least be lesser in extent. If the parents and perhaps the school as well succeeded in teaching the proper values to those children, they wouldn't end up enjoying the killing of innocents, stealing or destroying masses of property on one side, or exterminating scapegoats broadly referred to as terrorists to indicate they're scum of whom the violent dismembering shouldn't bother your conscience too much, on other, "good", side.

Casting the whole blame on parents, schools and some children's increased innate susceptibility would be a gross simplification, however. It can't escape noticing that games are made for a purpose. That purpose is profit. Only games that appeal to the audience can make it. One part of it is appealing to the right taste and the other is making the appeal strong enough to contract. Calling on popular, no matter how base, instincts is about the easiest way of achieving that goal.

Developers and publishers do just that and they know what they are doing. Parental Advisory label on the box is not enough. Contrary, is the best and cheapest way of getting the kids' attention. Also, advertising 18+ games in magazines of whom the readers are mostly minors defies the purpose of any such plaque. In many cases, adult only games are ostensibly made with minors in mind, broadly advertised in teen magazines and then end up on shop shelves with a small "Parental Advisory" note on the box, starting a rush among local teenagers. The publisher can't say it wasn't intended.

That's why I believe we, the society and the applicable authorities should be tougher on the game industry's excuses and crack down on those of them who go around the law. While they are not immedialy responsible for the death of any single crime an affected kid commits, there is a connection and the fact of playing on the kids instincts, waking them and rousing them, can't be questionned. Both this result (playing on the instincts and corrupting minors) and the potential final outcome (crime) are against the law and the mock curtain that labels and the publishers' bald assertions provide shouldn't prevent them from accountability for the consequences of their actions. Even if the immediate motive is fear, robbery, or whatever else not directly connected with a particular game.

I would like to make one reservation, though: as I said above, I'm against overdone censorship. I'm also in favour of ratings rather than cutting out scenes or other content. But that's so long as that kind of content merits a place in the game in the light of the setting, while the setting itself doesn't serve as an excuse to present the content.

What are your thoughts in the matter?

 

Well, I've read quite a bit about Manhunt, which seems to drive gore, and realistic, gruesome executions to a whole new level.
The player is constantly verbally encouraged, and gameplay-pressed to kill stealthily and as disgusting as possible.

Still, I don't think that playing violent games is bad, I often play them when I feel frustrated or angry... nothing as soothing as making some brains move.

I suppose that the weak of mind can be influenced by particularly violent and immersive games, but those will eventually run across an excuse somewhere regardless.

Censorship is far too easily poorly done, and poses a far too great risk to the freedom of being disgusting and nefarious, as "Freedom of thought and expression" is often applied, it would create a slippery slope.

So, I think that game companies should be allowed to put whatever pulp they want on the market, and if 'society' doesn't like it, let them create fun alternatives so that they don't *want* to play pulpy games, and let the odd moron discharge his annoyances IC, rather then IRL.

fftopic:

God... sentences like these just make me violent.
Can anyone please explain to just why elders need to be adressed with more respect then youngsters, or what gives them the right to nag or annoy youngsters, who should nonetheless be polite...
I'm all for more courtesy in the world, but this sort of "adult authority" musings just make me so angry, greater experience in life does not make someone superior
I know it's offtopicish, but I will not pass up a comment like this

 

It's not about older people being superior to other people in a organic sense, but one of the most basic rules of good ubpringing is that age demands respect. One talks differently to twice older people than to his peers and especially children, adolescents and young adults (such as, for example, yours truly) should mind their words when they are talking to elders. Especially if they are addressing them or talking back.

Yeah, what? is not correct, even though the adult gets what he's asking.

Please, I'm busy right now. Could we talk later? is perfectly acceptable, even though the adult does not get what he's asking.

Similarly, Your ass grows fat. is not the way one tells his parent that he or she perhaps eats too much. Similarly, What? You don't know that? Every idiot knows that... is not the same as I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Please notice there are no sir/madam's, begging your pardon's and the like. Just a little bit different way of delivering the same message with regard to phrasing. Of course, the bad phrasing is not the best manner of talking to one's peers either, but it gets more reprehensible when adults or even older people are targetted with that sort of speech.

A slap in the face from a parent was a good old way of solving this problem and it worked. Not being the parent, I limit myself to a short comment, of course, but I never let myself be talked to like that unless it's from friends, long acquintances, older family members or some such.

Games teach kids the contrary, ie lots of bad speech, rude comments and generally disrespectful ways of addressing people, including authority figures, public officers, family elders, law enforcement agents and others. Common people are fodder and strangers are either that or potential enemies, which is reflected in the reception they get.

 

Well, although you raise some valid points, I don't believe that mere age warrants greater respect - and society is permeated with the view it does, and I see it as my duty as a thinking youth to debate that view where ever I come across it.

The slapping of a child is definitely a bad idea, it teaches them that violence is a good way of asserting their authority -then again, it IS true- - and I believe that a kid with good charisma and some legal knowlege could succesfully sue them for it
Second, imagine it the other way... children slapping their parents for being morons, or rude, or whatever... then explain the difference -and, even more when, hypothetically speaking, two parents whose IQ summed up, equals that of their teenage child, who is politically educated, can hold his own in a philosophical debate with someone twice his age, and whatsnot-

Again, I don't understand why adults/elderly, merely through age, are owed greater courtesy.
I make a point out of practising and returning general courtesy, be it in maybe a simpler form then what books teach us, but an adult who expects respect because of his age can expect nothing then contempt from me.

<- I couldn't agree more

<- I don't see whatever for

Don't see this as some sort of attack or something, I'm just genuinely interested in exchanging views, understanding yours, and if I can, persuade you to agree with me.

Also, you commented about "authority figures".
While these hold no value for me whatsoever, as I don't acknowledge any non-democratic laws or authorities, and until I gain the right to vote -be it by aging or a change in law- government's laws don't apply to me

On a second sidenote, when trying to post I was repeatedly bugged about parenthesis in a html tag... I have no idea what that means, if you could explain, I'd be thankful

 

If you use an HTML tag in this message board engine, you can't use parentheses inside that tag. About everything that starts with < without a space following is considered an HTML tag. I guess it's some kind of security.

While in certain environments there is a view of government as everything related to external compulsion, it's not the government that makes the laws. In a democratic country, laws made by the government are subordinate to laws established by the parliament, which is the true legislator, and only serve the execution of parliament bills.

Also, regardlessly of whether you agree with a law it still applies to you. You can check that easily by committing a criminal offence in public sight, jaywalking in front of a policeman or anything such. There will be no asking whether you accept the law or not.

That is true, although kids with charisma and knowledge aren't really the anti-social kids who crave violence and rule-breaking for its own sake.

That would work if it were children who are bringing up parents, whereas it's the other way round.

Again, kids having the IQ of both their parents together (this means a genius, approaching 200) with enough sensitivity and clear reasoning to deal with philosophy and hold their own in debates with adults, well, those kids aren't the kids to get brainwashed by a mere game. In fact, I was one of such kids as to the latter part (my IQ, however, wasn't this high, as to the former part), and I played all sorts of games without ever turning gore off, nor anything remotely resembling parental control, and yet, somehow, I didn't get involved enough to think I was part of a game world, nor to try and harm people. If you took a wiser and smarter kid, the probability of corruption by a violent game would be even lower.

Note that supraintelligent and sensitive teenagers are not the ones who talk the way I described. If they, as you say, reach the level of an adult in reason, sensitivity and knowledge, the difference becomes close to none and the problem doesn't appear, as they behave like responsible adults and not like spoilt brats.

 

Games is just like any other entertainment, yes? Do we prohibit underage to watch porn? Do we prohibit underage to buy alcohol? Do we prohibit underage to buy Hustler? The same goes with pc games. There were similiar posts about this question at least twice in this forum, again and again i mention the study being done here in Iowa State U.,

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/Video_Game_FAQs.html
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/00senate.pdf

There are people who would argue that the researchers don't know anything about video games. The same can be apply to these poeple who know nothing about psychology.

There is no need to agrue, say "it's their fault that they surrender themselves to the dark side". Alcoholism and drug addicts work the same. Govern by their genetics, some are more easy to get hooked by alcohol and drug and some are not. But still we barred both from underage usage.

We don't need to finger point who is responsible for an underage who went for a killing rampage and playing a game. Prohibition is to protect people from being kill not limiting people's choice of entertainment. Educated adult can still pick their prefered game without hindrance.

 

Does playing computer and video games desensitize us to violence? I think that any of our opinions would be biased because we are a gaming community, and to say that we are desensitized to violence might suggest that we are weak-willed and/or desensitized. An impartial observer might deem our responses rather biased.

I believe that games, like all things, require moderation. It's not wrong to enjoy a glass of wine if you are of drinking age, but if you have drinking lots of alcohol daily for a long time, then something is probably wrong.

Minors, though they might not realize it, may be badly influenced by computer games; they may be detrimental. This is why I think parents should moderate game-playing to a healthy level, although I'm sure each parent has different ideas of what "moderate" is.

I realize that lots of people are going to say, "Sure, I play [game] a lot, but...", though I think that in two years in the future, you may have a different view.

 

The fact that we are gamers makes our opinion all that more valid. According to the idea that violent video games lead to violent people the more violent video games you play the higher the chance you will be a violent person. Now, I play ALOT of violent video games, I own Manhunt and I've played it a bit and I enjoy the incredible violence because it is in short supply (violence of that type shown in a more 'realistic' nature). However I am NOT a violent person. I do not think killing people is a 'cool' thing or that it is acceptable.

Someone else could play the same amount of computer games as myself and be a violent little b@st@rd. However since I play computer games and I'm not violent you can't draw a conclusion that computer games create violence in people.

Computer games alone do not create violent people. Violent people are created by a combination of factors and computer games might contribute to that violent nature but it will never be the major or sole cause of that nature.

 

That is true. There's a combination of factors and the influence of game alone doesn't make it, there even being no remarkable influence without previous susceptibility, which is different among individuals, and it all begins with parents not doing their job. That's why I refrain from casting the blame for the actions and behaviour of Quake-possessed or CS-possessed kids.

However, the makers and publishers of certain games thrive on violence and glamourise it. Using various tactics to attract the audience, including minors, to a game, they attract them to violence as well, excessive flashy violence being the chief bait.

If adults play that, I don't care. When adults get corrupted by a mere game to such an extent as to make one behave like a game character regardlessly of the society's system of values or of the law, it means something's wrong with them in the first place. But when kids get hold of such games, now that's different. If proper steps were taken to prevent the product from reaching minors, there would be no problem. Even if from time to time, a certain teenager would obtain a copy.

However, steps are not being taken. First they advertise the game among teenagers, then they put it on shelves with a parental advisory label. As well, certain such games are visibly made for teenagers even if there's a higher age limit. And that age limit is only there in countries that enforce it. That's ridiculous. Since this is an intended effect, and material gain is the motive, hence my strong reaction and relentless opposition.

 

I don't see how someone could cast blame on a gaming company for making a game that is rated R18 that supposedtly influenced a 17 year old. He's under-age for crying out loud! It's not the company's fault it's whoever bought the game for him (the victim's mother didn't blame the game company directly but if you say a game is bad then obviously it's the company that designed the game's fault).

By the time they are 18 it can be assumed that if you're influenced by a game then you have something wrong with you anyway (as Chev said) and even if you mimic the violence in the game there was just as much chance as this person mimicing the violence in a movie.

 

The basic idea is that rating a game 18+ isn't enough. Especially not if you develop make the game with teenagers in mind, advertise in teen magazines and then put the 18+ rating on the box, something's being very wrong. Kind of hypocritical as well.

 

Define a 'teen' magazine though. My father who is in his later 50s reads computer gaming magazines and to not advertise is to damn the basic concept of business - to make profit.

If you mean advertising in non-gaming magazines that target under-18-year-olds (despite how few magazines of this type there are), then, yes there is something wrong not only with the moral principle behind advertising it but also with their marketing and advertising departments. However, advertising in gaming magazines is exactly where they SHOULD be advertising the game since people of all ages read these magazines.