Violence in Video Games

Remove all ads!

I just finished playing a game I rented, Manhunt, for the Playstation. Talk about an incredibly violent game. In addition to the ability to smash the skull of your enemy and splatter blood everywhere, the language is something fierce. I believe I heard every word in the book.
I don't have a problem with violent games and I don't think someone who plays a violent game is going to go off and kill someone or try something they saw in the game. Though there certainly can be exceptions every now and then. What I do have a problem is how easily accesable these games are to younger gamers.
I returned the game to the video store and rented a movie. While standing in line, I watched a kid rent some games. One was this game Manhunt. The boy could not have been older than 6th grade. The clerk asked the boy if his mom knew he was renting this kind of game and he told her, "yep, she said it was ok." This was good enough for the clerk. For some strange odd reason, I was shocked. I don't know why. I've seen this happen before. I've seen kids go into video game stores and buy games with mature ratings. Granted its not the job of the employee to play mom or dad, but aren't they not suppose to sell games with a mature rating to kids? And where are the parents? Why is a kid going into a store and renting a game like this? Where was the parent? She was outside the video store smoking a cigarette. I witnessed through the window of the store as the mom looked at what the kid rented, smiled, then got into her car and drove off with her son. Sad, very sad.

 

why is that sad, Censure is what makes me sad. i think kids should be allowed to play such games and I'm sick and tired of this moral ****. the worst think that could happen to a normal child is it got scared or started swearing. uuh big deal, who cares. seriously, i can't see the problem, the kid, if he is raised well, will know that this is not real, it is a game and swearing part, i just can't understand why you have such a problem with it.

 

Yes, If a kid is raise well, that kid shouldn't has any problem on anything at all. You need more explaination on how o raise a kid well. Is letting your children playing violent games satisfies "rasing well"? If you have no problem with underage playing violent games, then i am sure you have no problem letting your kids watch porn (those really violent and twisted ones) right? i am sure you raise your kids well.

There is a co-relation between violent game and violent behavior. Such extensive research has been done in Iowa State University. 2 teenagers shooting poeple with shotgun in interstate said they just wanted to re-create the sence of GTA (i don't have the names readily with me now). Tell me you do feel safer living with such games being spread without any check at all.

Why then, those two 14, 15 years old would want to carry a shotgun to interstate and randomly shoot at people just to re-create the fun they had in GTA3?

If you are one of the victims, would you rather gamble your precious life on parent rasing their kids well or in the hands of law enforcers?

i was once doesn't believe that violent games contribute violent behavior (thanks to my parents). However, i cannot say every other parent is my parents. Every now and then we have parent who doesn't have any idea what their children playing. It is this every now and then that my precious life is in potential danger. i am more than willing to give away some of my luxury to play GTA3 just to make sure my life is not in potential danger.

Don't get me wrong, i still think raising their children well is important. However, this is not enough. Kids are kids after all, they have their rights to be shielded from what others celebrate as reality.

 

Now where did the porn part come from? Really thats just immature. and to address it, I think its okay for young and old people to watch porn. As long as it is "normal" porn, not child porn or anything.

And 14-15 years are not children. ad least not in Denmark. And instead of banning games, you should ban weapons. I mean 14-15 year old people who has access to a shotgun. Dude its not the games that's the problem here.

I'm not sure i understand you, you say there is a co-relation between violent game and violent behavior. To use your own words and at the same time you say you don't believe in it.

And no I don't have a problem with kids playing violent games, they are going to see violence in some measure anyway.

[ December 25, 2003, 22:19: Message edited by: Equester ]

 

The way I understand it, Vice City had the "hooker" part of the game taken out for Australians. There was some kind of cheat or something for it, but otherwise, no nooky Down Under. I don't know if that was to stop everyone from getting their money back, or what.

Anyways, if they're doing their jobs right, parents shouldn't have to monitor the games their children are playing...

 

They took out the hooker part? Lol it wasn't even dirty or anything. I remember, by the way that the scandinavien version of Fallout 2 wasn't allowed outside scandinavia becouse it wasn't censured like the european version. A little of topic, I know.

 

I am not entirely against violance in games.
Certainly there is a limit which they should not exceed.
Which I consider much more important is the family background. The parents (or those who rear and educate the child) should spend time with the child(ren), talk a lot, explain him the reality.
Nowadays, work got too high importance. The relationship between people is underestimated (too) often.
The real danger is if the children (e.g. due to violent games) become far from the reality, actually won't know the REALITY. In this case, the games (not necessarily only the violent ones) mean danger.

 

I'm against the censoring of regional versions. It only gives you the additional trouble of substituting some files with different ones from your net pal who lives in another country. Or, if it's some sort of censoring patch, someone will soon post a counter-patch somewhere. Remember Giants: Citizen Kabuto and mermaids with brassieres? Just one file needed a walk (and I'm not telling you which one for the sake of minors here ). If they cut or paste things rather than disable/enable them or do technically irrelevant edits, it's compatibility that takes a walk. That's one factor.

Another factor is: hands off my game, damn you! Put your parental control in options. I'll make sure to turn it on before letting my younger brother in. You can make it a password-protected setting, if you like. You can sell two versions - for kids and adults, if you have to. Or make an adult patch that will be available in Kazaa network before you finish making it Just give me my game with all the badmouthing, gore and fornication that you put in there.

However, there's a difference between depiction and propagation. I seem to enjoy gore, but cult of violence for its own sake is too much even for me. I understand the necros and other bad guys have to be really evil and spat out by abyss itself, but I'm not OK with games that look like the developer's own crusade against religions, morals etc. Depiction is bound by realism. Even if it's some fictional realia, there's still some level of realism to be maintained. I'm not OK with them means I won't buy them and I want to be warned of the filthy content beforehand.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to develop a more complex rating system and make ratings appear on all game boxes so everyone would know what he's buying. Physical violence, other drastic scenes, foul language, sex, possibly offensive to this and that religion (I'm speaking of profanation of symbols, insulting a religion or its followers or priesthood etc etc, and not just some characters behaving in a wrong way per that religion - or we had better start censoring the Bible), possibly offensive to this and that minority and so on. Not restriction, just information. Restriction should only be the case if the abuse is criminal per laws of the country - such as child pornography or human & animal sex in most of civilised countries.

To sum up: realism is OK, depiction is OK. Propagation of negative attitude and/or behaviour is not OK. Ratings should displace downright prohibition or cutting scenes. Parental control should be an option in all games with explicit content. Patches removing parental locks should be criminalised.

 

Chevalier's points are very valid. A nice statement on censorship in general.

Ratings and not cuttings should be the way art is addressed.

 

On violent behavior and violent games,
the study was done by Dr. Craig A. Anderson from Iowa Sate University. My crappy 56k modem prohibits me from looking up more information for you. But from what i remembered, in one of their experiments, they let two groups of teenagers play different games, one violent, the other not. Then they gave these two groups a list of fill in the blanks like m _ _ _ _ _ r. The violent game ones will come out with words like murder and the non violent game ones will fill in with other words.

On violent and sex,
violent and sex goes hand in hand. Why twisted porn is censored but not twisted violent, i don't understand. If porn is not reality, then why violent is? How often we see people chopping off limbs and head on random target?

On my stand,
i was once don't believe in the co-relation between violent games and violent behavior (see the past tense). Not until the families of the victims of GTA shotgun shooting brothers wanted to use studies from my school (iowa state u.) to sue GTA company.
Yes, fire arms should be restricted, so is violent games, addictive drugs, porn and so on. Take away fire arms, we may stop the two brothers from commiting crime. But the seed of violent behavior still planted inside.

 

It is difficult to raise kids, let alone raise them well, when you're not there.

 

Actually, come to think of it, parents have little to do when it comes to shaping their children. Seperated identical twins raised in different environment by different parents still have similiar personalities (not to mention abilities).

Therefore, it is almost hopeless and useless to count on parents to protect your life from violent game aftermath.

 

I tend to disagree with that, since i do believe that parents can help the kid to find (or discover if you prefer) ways to defuse their energy in a more creative way, avoiding the lament channels that may have been used.
And that is a crucial role i believe.
I agree with Chev in this

 

teekc is correct about the twin studies revealing startling genetic links with personality. That does not downplay the importance of parental guidance, however. Anyone ever bothered to take a look at how many people in jail on death row are from broken and/or poor backgrounds? While genetics does affect our predisposition to certain behaviors, it is your environment that determines where your personality will fall in between those two extremes of predisposition.

I used to be of the belief that censorship in games and other media solved nothing. Once again, note the past tense. There's definitely a point where 'art' becomes tasteless, which a mature mind can acknowledge (you won't watch things that are tasteless). Unfortunately, there are people that have not been as fortunate as we have, and they may lack the maturity to differentiate between right/wrong, reality/fantasy, etc. Those children (yes, children. 14-15 may be physically developed but I have yet to meet one that is mentally above pubesence) in Iowa provide a good example.

BTW, it is (and has been for years) illegal for anyone under 18 to purchase any sort of weapon in the US. Laws won't stop determined people (which is why gun control doesn't work).

 

Many people are focusing on the 14-15 year age group here, and based on the Iowa information, I understand why. But quite frankly, do you really have to be 14-15 to differentiate between reality and fantasy? I think nearly everyone is able to do that by age 12, and most people can do that by age 10. Basically, putting the equivalent of a "PG-13" rating on video games should be enough. Teenagers are frequently tried in courts as adults, meaning the general consesus (at least among Americans) is that teenagers can differentiate between right and wrong.

And I completely disagree with the statement that violent games promote real violence in teenagers. Come on now folks. As an avid gamer, I have played more than my share of violent games, and I know of countless other people who have done the same. Yet I do not know anyone personally who has turned into a murderer/rapist/mugger/etc. We are talking about an extremely small fraction of people who are negatively affected by these games. Furthermore, correlation does not necessarily equate to cause and effect. Heck, remember the Columbine shootings a few years back? Right before the killing spree began, those kids went bowling. Perhaps violently knocking down helpless and defenseless pins with a mean, sadistic bowling ball promotes violence then by that rationale...

 

@ Equestor

I find your line of logic naive and irresponsible. [edit - more polite ]

That's like saying that your kids will come in contact with drug addiction at some point, so you might as well let them get high as early as possible and hang out with junkies. Good call...wanna babysit my nephews? They aren't screwed up enough.

Guided exposure is not the same thing as encouragement. Not even the same ballpark. There's a world of difference between kids being introduced to the reality of violence in the world in an effort to understand it, and kids taught to think that the violence, vulgarity and criminal activity dipicted in these games is "cool." This is the idea that gets into kids heads that is dangerous. The idea of a gun being a cool thing is what gets kids to get the gun out of dad's closet and use it, not the gun itself. The gun doesn't say "hey...come play with me!" The idea has to get into their head somehow. Social environments are just as much to blame for violent behavior, probably moreso. But why fan the flames? By encouraging kids to play these games and watch porn, you aren't exactly arming your kids to make better life choices.

My dad is an NRA member, rifle hunter and target shooter. I've had guns in my house my entire life. They were well within my reach, and in fact I was encouraged to hunt with my dad as a kid, though I never did. Just having guns around doesn't equate to irresponsible parenting. My parents taught me from a young age of the dangers of such things, and as an adult I'm grateful. What was never tolerated, however, was the idea that running around shooting people was cool. I wasn't even allowed to have a toy gun as a kid, and I never really wanted one.

Point is: Censorship of dangerous, violent and morally corrupt ideas to kids is called PARENTING, not censorship. Calling it censorship just lacks common sense. Kids are impressionable, period. Human Development, Chapter One, Page One: It's what we learn as kids that make us the adults we become. Criminal violence isn't cool or fun. Games like Grand Theft Auto teach kids that sex, violence and criminal activity is cool and fun; a message no kid needs to receive.

I like violent video games too. I play Baldur's Gate, Diablo, etc. As a kid, one of my favorite games was Contra. The entire game was running around shooting Aliens with a machine gun. The difference? Aliens aren't real. Diablo isn't real. Running around with a sword hacking up orcs isn't real. It's obvious fantasy. The enemies you brutally slay are monsters that don't exist. Not a difficult distinction to understand, is it?

A car thief who scores points by stealing cars , shooting people, and screwing hookers in the bushes is not only real, but about the last character on earth I would want my kids admiring. When you're a little older than 19 and close to having kids of your own, I truly hope you understand why.

[ December 29, 2003, 23:47: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

The thing is that the kids who are negatively influenced by videogames are more or less screwed from the start. If it isnt videogames it would be movies, if it isnt movies it is comics and so on. These are the kids who cant handle anything. These are the kids you have to constantly watch all the time for everything and shouldnt be allowed to do much of anything. The other 99% of kids can run around shooting people in GTA from the age of 8 without it having any effect on them cause they know it is a game and they know the things they do in the game are wrong in reality.

 

I have to agree with Death Rabbit's last post here almost completely, he has said it very well I think.

While it is true that only a small population may be adversely affected to such a large degree by this, it is my opinion that the mindset or psyche that exists thinking that murdering or hurting people for fun, or that lying and cheating, or a constant obsession with sex, is somehow the right thing to do, is damaging in and of itself. Games are one focus of this amongst many others. As DR has said, censorship and parenting are two entirely different matters, a child is still learning, and it is their parents responcibility to teach them.

While it is true that a child can differentitae fact from reality with the best of us, they are still forming their attitudes and moral ethics- and it is this which is affected.

 

Strange enough that more often than not the dregs of society are the ones who blame violent computer games for their actions. In New Zealand we don't have much of an issue with violent computer games. The ones who the games will influence the most probably can't even afford to buy them. These people who are influenced the most are the 'less fortunate' or to screw being publicly correct, the 'poor people'.

If a child is stupid enough to be influenced by games and from this influence think that beating someone around the head with a baseball bat is 'acceptable' or 'cool' then the child would probably have come to this conclusion anyway. There are many other ways this information is displayed to children: parent's behaviour, siblings, and friends. Violence pops up from all sorts of places. Video games aren't the only one.

Violence has existed since the dawn of man when Urgh hit Uncle Grugh on the head with a rock. When Maximus Minimus stabbed Hangar the Bloodomen in a war between the Romans and the Goths. When good old William hopped on a boat and Francified England in 1066. When another, albeit short, Frenchman thought France could blame all its problems on other countries and show their distate of having these problems by invading same-said countires. When our dear friend Hitler decided that Germany was a bit too small. And even now when Bush thinks Arabs have a little too much oil for their own good (or whatever else reason you can think for invading Iraq and Afghanistan). Some of these times had video games, some didn't but violence was still everywhere yet you didn't see Billy blaming his killing of his best friend Sammy on the fact that his young mind was corrrupted because Maximus knew how to skin a Goth in 21 different ways.

Abomination, what's your point? Good question, I think I lost it myself on the way. The parents are to blame and always will be. Teach a kid how to think for themselves and distinguish between right and wrong and there won't be this type of problem.

 

I agree with Abomination and Chevalier on this. The rating system does not really do anything, and most parents that I have come across won't look at that anyway, they'll just get it because they don't care or because their kids want it so 'why not?'

Let's go with this twin argument to prove a point. I think it will anyway.

We have our twins, and they are brought up in totally different environments; one in an environment where violence is forbidden and taught that it is wrong, etc, and is never exposed to violent video games or anything. The other twin is in an environment where killing is considered to be "cool" and "the correct thing to do", and is constantly exposed to violent video games. Now, let's say they both kill aomeone. Would it be the video game's fault that the former twin killed someone? No, the kid was already messed up. Then would the other twin be naturally messed up too? Yes, going by that study, but the video games will be blamed. Why? People don't want to think that they're defective, they don't want the blame.

Now, let's say there's a kid that's brought up in the same environment as the former, afore mentioned, twin. One day, the kid's friend gets and plays, let's say, GTA, and thinks killing is cool. The kid will, then, think killing is cool. Is that the video game's fault? No, the kid never played the video game. Is it the kid's friend's fault? No, since he never really killed anyone. Then whose fault is it?

As previously said, I think, kids that supposedly get messed up by playing violent video games are all ready messed up. OK, so that was a bad job at paraphrasing...but still...If the kid is brought up in a poor family/background, he'll be too angry at the world to care whether it's correct or not, or if the kid isn't very intelligent, he won't realize that it's not real, no matter how well s/he's taught. They'll come to the conclusion, even if they're pampered and kept away from everyone their entire lives, they'll still be violent, though perhaps just not to the extent of killing people.

Eh..sorry about my rambling.

[Edit]

As I was sitting here, listening to Sing For The Moment by Eminem, another point crossed my mind. It's still the kid's fault that s/he lets the video game influence them and their fault they take the action that they take, not the video game's. As Eminem put it, "They say music can alter moods and talk to you
But can it load a gun for you and cock it too?
Well if it can, then the next time you assault a dude
Just tell the judge it was my fault, and i'll get sued"

In other words, the video games don't load and cock the guns nor pull the trigger, the kid does.

[/Edit]