|
Post by Tara on Mar 31, 2005 15:09:52 GMT -5
Some people think violent videogames are horrible and need to be off the market. Others think violence in video games have little impact on the violence people do to each other.
Now for my personal opinion. ;D
For me, violent videogames is an outlet if I'm feeling angry, or if I feel like causing trouble without really getting in trouble. ;D I don't think that just because a form of entertainment is violent that it will make me violent. I think the worse it can do is inspire someone with an already bad intent to do something. But that's about it. I also think that it's hipocritical for folks to say that they don't want their children playing these games, yet will just as willingly send them to war.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Mar 31, 2005 22:27:44 GMT -5
If you are inclined to violence, it makes you more violent. If you are not....not neccessarily. Yes, in a perfect world, I don't think there would be violent games, but I'm a bit of a hypocrite on that. It seems that the cases against videogames (columbine, etc.) involve psychopaths, making them largely invalid as evidence. My favorite view on the matter is one advocated by a classmate of mine: In the end, its bad parenting. His logical was: If a parent (against violent videogames) allows their kid to play such or does not raise the child to be non-violent (and therefore susceptible to the violence), then it is the parents fault for allowing the child to become violent.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Apr 1, 2005 10:21:04 GMT -5
i heard of a story in south america about a guy (years ago) who went into a cinema and shot a load of people because it was like one of the levels in duke nukem 3d - he even shot the mirror which in the game revealed a secret. i think he shot himself before the police arrived, though. i remember when people made a big fuss about the first GTA, but all the adults i talked to at the time just laughed at it, and i was allowed to play it even though it was rated 18 and i was about 12 at the time (my dad said it was like "mickey mouse" stuff - he let me play duke nukem 3d as well, though). lately i've been playing burnout 3 on my bro's ps2 and it's quite fun, sometimes if i'm really bored or stressed then i just play one of the road rage games (where you crash as many cars off the race as possible) and it's instantly satisfying ;D it hasn't made me feel like going on a rampage or street race in my car, though that could also be because my car is a piece of crap
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Apr 1, 2005 18:04:24 GMT -5
Yes... the parenting...
Does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter of violent videogames? Do we all agree?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingpoet on Aug 1, 2005 11:09:36 GMT -5
I think they make you more violent, but what does that mean really? I don't think what I mean by that is what everyone else means... I think simply being angry is a sign of violence, though I don't think video games ever made anyone kill someone. I mean, that is perposterous! I think how you deal with your anger is a choice... and whether or not you get angry to a certain degree depends on if you have a calm mind or a violent mind. I'm not perfect when it comes to getting upset or angry... but isn't some of the stuff you see people getting all worked up over just way out of proportion?
I think we need to learn what is a normal state of mind, and then do everything we can to get back to it... Has anyone seen little kids who are sweet and innocent, and then those who are warped... we are predispositioned toward goodness, but we throw it away.
-W.P.
|
|
|
Post by ophelia97 on Aug 2, 2005 10:44:51 GMT -5
It depends on the type of violence in the game. I'm not into games where the character shoots other people for no real reason, including the games where you shoot the cops, etc. If there's a reason for the violence, such as killing zombies and monsters to save your life, that's more acceptable. I think violence in games is probably made for adults and mature players who can tell the difference between reality and games. Parents really need to keep track of what their kids are playing. The mature and adult only labels on the games are there for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Aug 20, 2005 20:53:15 GMT -5
I recently read a short article on this, and it got me thinking about the subject (though my previous views still stand, in fact, this is more of an elaboration than not): Simply enough, there is no proof whatsoever that videogames, of any sort, make people more violent. However, there is ample proof that they help dramatically with a number of mental abilities. Detractors of videogames argue based on incidences; shoot outs which parallel and are linked to paticular violent games. Now, in all of these incidences, the perpetrators were psychopaths. Flipping through the Encyclopedia of Psychology, we see that the definition of a psychopath is one who cannot distinguish reality from illusion. Videogames, at their basis, are a complex illusion, designed to immerse one into a fantastical, and oftentimes terrible, world. If a normal individual is past a certain age/level of maturity, they are no longer impressionable enough to have a violent illusion dramatically affect their reality; they understand it is unacceptable within the bounds of their reality. A psychopath, however, when exposed to violent material, will, inexorably, display mirroring behavior. Considering today's society, it is nigh impossible to keep a psychopath from experiencing a violent illusion (often enough it may come from the very frustration of their mind). So violent video games do not procreate violence, but merely shape what violence would already exist.
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Aug 21, 2005 19:22:42 GMT -5
Hmm... interesting.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Aug 23, 2005 20:00:41 GMT -5
that is interesting, but i will draw a parallel with the guns arguement here - personally it wouldn't convince me to ban violent computer games, but if you can point out how it's not irrelevant then go for it:
people who defend the right to own guns often say that guns aren't the problem, people are. if we banned guns then we would have a problem with knives (like in the UK) because it's a problem with violence in society, not guns ... my dad told me of a statistic he heard in the US last week (he was on holiday with my mum in florida for a few weeks) - apparently, in the USA, 40,000 people are killed each year in gun-related fatalities, and 2/3s of those are accidental.
if you banned guns then you might have knife crime but i don't believe that you will have so many accidental knife-related fatalities as you have accidental gun-related fatalities (not to mention other serious injuries) - you actually have to physically stab someone to kill them, unlike guns where you just have to pull the trigger and it can be done from a distance too (also the fact that a bullet fired from a gun does so much more damage than a single knife wound could).
i see the pro-guns argument as similar to what almalcas has just explained to us (it's not guns/games that are the problem, it's society) but i guess there aren't any statistics available that point out that video games are so much worse than movies or tv programs ...
|
|
|
Post by ophelia97 on Aug 24, 2005 8:26:45 GMT -5
I would say it isn't guns or people that are the problem; it's people with guns/weapons. But I have to agree that if it wasn't guns, it would be a different weapon problem.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Aug 24, 2005 11:28:44 GMT -5
I believe you misunderstood my argument. My argument was not to blame society for violence (no doubt it is at fault, though), but to discredit the evidence as displayed by videogame detractors. There is also a fundamental difference in the guns argument: A gun's true purpose is to harm. A videogame, however, is merely purposed to create an entertaining illusion. So, again, problems would only arise when an individual could not divide illusion from reality. Note: If you havn't guessed already, I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate.
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Aug 24, 2005 15:25:37 GMT -5
Yes, it's entertaining isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by ophelia97 on Aug 25, 2005 12:52:10 GMT -5
I believe you misunderstood my argument. My argument was not to blame society for violence (no doubt it is at fault, though), but to discredit the evidence as displayed by videogame detractors. There is also a fundamental difference in the guns argument: A gun's true purpose is to harm. A videogame, however, is merely purposed to create an entertaining illusion. So, again, problems would only arise when an individual could not divide illusion from reality. Note: If you havn't guessed already, I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate. I understand the point of a psychopath not discerning reality from illusion or trying to bring a game into reality by acting out the part of a character. The only problem is we can't refuse to sell games to people until we know if they're psychologically sound; that would be a little ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Aug 25, 2005 16:46:53 GMT -5
Well, it would take a lot of time and energy out of people's hands. Would it even make game prices go even higher than they already are?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Aug 25, 2005 19:53:45 GMT -5
Blaming video games for violence is like blaming McDonalds for being obese. Sooner or later one would think that society would make people take responsibility for their actions.
It is my belief that playing violent video games may give someone already inclined towards violence ideas in which to release that violent tendency, but I do not believe, nor have I seen or heard anything convincing that makes me believe, that simply playing violent video games, or watching violent movies, causes non-violent persons to become violent.
|
|