• 158 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by Legion_ (1254 posts) -

What up duders. Patrick posted a article today regarding Obama's instructions to get the CDC to research links between violent video games and violent actions in the real world.

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/obama-instructs-cdc-to-research-links-between-violent-media-and-real-life-violence/4521/

A lot of the comments seem to negative regarding the research. I can't understand that. I don't understand why everyone seems to be on the defensive. The way I see his, it is a win-win situation. One of two outcomes are possible,

1. They do the research, and find no relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, games are free to go.

2. They do the research, and find a relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, we'll be able to better understand why, and we would have to take action to ensure that games don't fall in the wrong hands.

If it's the second one, then so be it. We're not going to defend our hobby to the point where people have to die for our right to play COD, are we? At that point, we would be no better than supporters of guns. They're always trying to find reasons for guns not be illegal, and grasp after straws to make silly arguments. Still, most people who have guns don't kill people with them, but I still think they should be illegal. Obviously, most people who play COD don't kill people, but if it shown to have a negative effect on our youths, and make them potential killers, then I'm all for a solution to that problem.

Of course, now there will come all sorts of subjective comments about how games are unfairly made a target to this or that. But instead of being on the defensive, let's go balls out. Show these people that they can do whatever tests they want, because we don't think games are bad for the development of young people. And if we are proven wrong? So be it, then that's on us, and we'll own up to it.

Don't be cowards!

#2 Posted by Animasta (14643 posts) -

people believe they'd actually ban video games, or violent ones, which is pretty hilarious.

#3 Posted by TheHumanDove (2505 posts) -

Cowards? I just take any studies with a grain of salt. Often times they're sorely inaccurate and in another few years a new study will completely void the findings. It's the way of the scientific world.

#4 Posted by Rainbowkisses (472 posts) -

@Legion_ said:

2. They do the research, and find a relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, we'll be able to better understand why, and we would have to take action to ensure that games don't fall in the wrong hands.

How do you think that would be accomplished?

#5 Posted by planetfunksquad (399 posts) -

@Animasta said:

people believe they'd actually ban video games, or violent ones, which is pretty hilarious.

How is that hilarious? Censorship happens all over the world man.

#6 Edited by Animasta (14643 posts) -

@Rainbowkisses said:

@Legion_ said:

2. They do the research, and find a relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, we'll be able to better understand why, and we would have to take action to ensure that games don't fall in the wrong hands.

How do you think that would be accomplished?

I assume they would be talking about making more of a penalty to sell mature rated video games to minors

@planetfunksquad: because the video game industry is very large?

#7 Posted by Video_Game_King (35848 posts) -

@Legion_ said:

I don't understand why everyone seems to be on the defensive.

Because they've had to be on the defensive for so long. The "video games are the devil" argument has always been the easier argument to make, since while many people play video games, very few see themselves as gamers. This would make many people outside to our hobby, and thus easier to write video games off. I'm not trying to take a stance on this, but merely trying to explain the logic.

#8 Posted by TheHT (10812 posts) -

i imagine most people don't like the idea of having their hobby poked and attacked again after nothing of substance came from all the prodding in the past.

#9 Posted by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -

@Legion_: Great post. I completely agree with you.

#10 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3721 posts) -

I am so negative for the reasoning itself... but honestly that is secondary.

The main thing is I am sick and tired as a citizen of seeing tax money spent and spent and the refusal to cut any spending in our government. How much debt must we be in before we deal with it? This is a completely unnecessary action.

It reminds me of that "Big Bird" mess during the election. It was a small cut to make, sure, but those add up. Our citizens and government are so unwilling to make any cuts and it will be too late before we do anything, at this rate.

Sorry, kind of secondary I suppose... but it's really not. Enough private research has been done.

#11 Posted by Legion_ (1254 posts) -

@Rainbowkisses said:

@Legion_ said:

2. They do the research, and find a relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, we'll be able to better understand why, and we would have to take action to ensure that games don't fall in the wrong hands.

How do you think that would be accomplished?

A start would be to always show ID when buying a 18+ game at local video game retailers, if the person looks younger than the age of...say 25. Beyond that? Get parents to take their responsibility seriously. A 12 year old shouldn't play COD. Same goes for a 13, 14, 15 year old. 16 and up is sort of a gray area, and at that point, it's a lot up to the parents to decide how mature their kid is.

#12 Posted by Legion_ (1254 posts) -

@planetfunksquad said:

@Animasta said:

people believe they'd actually ban video games, or violent ones, which is pretty hilarious.

How is that hilarious? Censorship happens all over the world man.

"The fact is the federal government can’t do anything about violent games even if it wants to, because the Supreme Court is pretty clear about where it stands on infringing upon the First Amendment, regardless of violent content" - Dan Stapleton, GameSpy.

#13 Posted by planetfunksquad (399 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@planetfunksquad: because the video game industry is very large?

Why would that stop them? If they found there to be a concrete link between violent games and real world violence then they'd ban them.

I'm not saying they will find a link and I'm not even saying I'd care if violent games were banned. I don't play games to shoot dudes in the head. I'd play games regardless. I mean, shit, it isn't like games haven't been banned before. Manhunt 2 was banned in the UK. Rockstar even went as far as to censor it themselves.

#14 Posted by OmegaChosen (644 posts) -

We shouldn't be on the defensive. The burden of proof is on them, not us. And frankly, they ain't gonna find anything that says clearly that video games cause people to become fatally violent.

#15 Posted by Animasta (14643 posts) -

@planetfunksquad said:

@Animasta said:

@planetfunksquad: because the video game industry is very large?

Why would that stop them? If they found there to be a concrete link between violent games and real world violence then they'd ban them.

I'm not saying they will find a link and I'm not even saying I'd care if violent games were banned. I don't play games to shoot dudes in the head. I'd play games regardless. I mean, shit, it isn't like games haven't been banned before. Manhunt 2 was banned in the UK. Rockstar even went as far as to censor it themselves.

then why haven't we banned cigs, hmm?

#16 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3721 posts) -

@Legion_ said:

@Rainbowkisses said:

@Legion_ said:

2. They do the research, and find a relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, we'll be able to better understand why, and we would have to take action to ensure that games don't fall in the wrong hands.

How do you think that would be accomplished?

A start would be to always show ID when buying a 18+ game at local video game retailers, if the person looks younger than the age of...say 25. Beyond that? Get parents to take their responsibility seriously. A 12 year old shouldn't play COD. Same goes for a 13, 14, 15 year old. 16 and up is sort of a gray area, and at that point, it's a lot up to the parents to decide how mature their kid is.

Where do you live? I've lived in three states and all three require ID to buy Mature games. It's done at the retailer level at this point, so it's nationwide anyways.

Parents have to parent their own damn kids. It's not the governments job.

#17 Posted by planetfunksquad (399 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@planetfunksquad said:

@Animasta said:

@planetfunksquad: because the video game industry is very large?

Why would that stop them? If they found there to be a concrete link between violent games and real world violence then they'd ban them.

I'm not saying they will find a link and I'm not even saying I'd care if violent games were banned. I don't play games to shoot dudes in the head. I'd play games regardless. I mean, shit, it isn't like games haven't been banned before. Manhunt 2 was banned in the UK. Rockstar even went as far as to censor it themselves.

then why haven't we banned cigs, hmm?

Good point. But like I said, there is a precedent for banning media. Or at least censoring it. They can't censor cigs but they can sure as hell censor a game.

#18 Posted by l4wd0g (1896 posts) -

The studies have been done. I have 100 scientific journal articles saying that video games lower empathy (and momentarily raise aggression). Games journalist and gamers just don't want to talk about it. I don't know why.

#19 Posted by TheHT (10812 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@planetfunksquad said:

@Animasta said:

@planetfunksquad: because the video game industry is very large?

Why would that stop them? If they found there to be a concrete link between violent games and real world violence then they'd ban them.

I'm not saying they will find a link and I'm not even saying I'd care if violent games were banned. I don't play games to shoot dudes in the head. I'd play games regardless. I mean, shit, it isn't like games haven't been banned before. Manhunt 2 was banned in the UK. Rockstar even went as far as to censor it themselves.

then why haven't we banned cigs, hmm?

totally different situation.

#20 Edited by Animasta (14643 posts) -

@planetfunksquad said:

@Animasta said:

@planetfunksquad said:

@Animasta said:

@planetfunksquad: because the video game industry is very large?

Why would that stop them? If they found there to be a concrete link between violent games and real world violence then they'd ban them.

I'm not saying they will find a link and I'm not even saying I'd care if violent games were banned. I don't play games to shoot dudes in the head. I'd play games regardless. I mean, shit, it isn't like games haven't been banned before. Manhunt 2 was banned in the UK. Rockstar even went as far as to censor it themselves.

then why haven't we banned cigs, hmm?

Good point. But like I said, there is a precedent for banning media. Or at least censoring it. They can't censor cigs but they can sure as hell censor a game.

and that's never going to happen; it didn't happen with movies, music or TV (afaik) so I can't see video games getting censored in the way you seem to think they might.

@TheHT: yeah, one has a confirmed correlation and one does not.

#21 Posted by Karkarov (2942 posts) -

Uh you don't get it. This research has been done, many, many times. There is no link. This is Obama wasting another 10 million taxpayer dollars so he can look good on tv and "appear" to be doing something about the issue of school shootings.

#22 Posted by Animasta (14643 posts) -

@Karkarov said:

Uh you don't get it. This research has been done, many, many times. There is no link. This is Obama wasting another 10 million taxpayer dollars so he can look good on tv and "appear" to be doing something about the issue of school shootings.

your complaint is valid but that is not the main complaint that was floated in the comments of that article

#23 Posted by Legion_ (1254 posts) -

@Karkarov said:

Uh you don't get it. This research has been done, many, many times. There is no link. This is Obama wasting another 10 million taxpayer dollars so he can look good on tv and "appear" to be doing something about the issue of school shootings.

That's not true at all. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, several studies actually show that empathy is decreased over time, and aggression is increased momentarily. Are these studies conclusive? No, that's why we need to know more about the connection.

#24 Posted by The_Hiro_Abides (1249 posts) -

@Animasta: Books have been banned before, music is censored (radio edits, although simple now for original cuts), TV shows are constantly censored (at least "edgy" ones), comic books during the silver age, and there are movies that have been edited for graphic material for their initial release or altogether not released in some regions for violence ( i.e.Battle Royale not coming to the US officially for over a decade.)

So while we've become accustomed to it, things are censored all the time for regular mass consumption.

As for the main topic, research into this always seem inconclusive. It's just the ongoing scapegoat. People fear what they don't understand. It's fine and safe when they think it's a toy as opposed to another form of entertainment.

#25 Posted by NoobSauceG7 (1230 posts) -

@Legion_ said:

@Rainbowkisses said:

@Legion_ said:

2. They do the research, and find a relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, we'll be able to better understand why, and we would have to take action to ensure that games don't fall in the wrong hands.

How do you think that would be accomplished?

A start would be to always show ID when buying a 18+ game at local video game retailers, if the person looks younger than the age of...say 25. Beyond that? Get parents to take their responsibility seriously. A 12 year old shouldn't play COD. Same goes for a 13, 14, 15 year old. 16 and up is sort of a gray area, and at that point, it's a lot up to the parents to decide how mature their kid is.

I have to show my ID when buying rated M games. Hell, my mom has to show her ID and she definitely is not 17...I think?

#26 Posted by LikeaSsur (1488 posts) -

@Legion_ said:

@Karkarov said:

Uh you don't get it. This research has been done, many, many times. There is no link. This is Obama wasting another 10 million taxpayer dollars so he can look good on tv and "appear" to be doing something about the issue of school shootings.

That's not true at all. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, several studies actually show that empathy is decreased over time, and aggression is increased momentarily. Are these studies conclusive? No, that's why we need to know more about the connection.

Those are short term effects, though, and it happens with any kind of violent media, be it video games, music, or movies.

#27 Posted by planetfunksquad (399 posts) -

@Animasta said:

and that's never going to happen; it didn't happen with movies, music or TV (afaik) so I can't see video games getting censored in the way you seem to think they might.

I agree that it probably wont happen I'm just saying that it isn't as laughable as you seem to thing it is. In the UK violent movies were banned for a long ass time (admittedly times have moved on a bit but still, theres precedent).

And they don't have to just straight up say VIOLENT GAMES ARE BANNED. Over here in the UK theres a kind of unwritten agreement that larger cinemas wont carry a movie if it isn't BBFC rated. That means that while theres no law that says a movie must be rated to be shown, it means that if your movie is deemed to be unfit for viewing, then your audience is severely limited.

If after this study is completed, lets just say for arguments sake they find that link they seem to be looking for. Then all major retailers agree that a game must be rated in order for it to be on their shelves. Those ratings could turn out to be very harsh. Maybe they decide not to stock the next COD or whatever based on that. Thats damaging to the industry right there. Yeah the likes of you and me will find a way to play whatever the fuck we want but it's still gonna eat into that bottom line for publishers and studios.

I'm not saying this is how it will go and I'm not saying we should be worried. We shouldn't. Im just saying it's not unthinkable.

#28 Posted by Animasta (14643 posts) -

@The_Hiro_Abides: wasn't battle royale's thing was that no one wanted to pick it up for distribution here?

#29 Posted by Legion_ (1254 posts) -

@LikeaSsur said:

@Legion_ said:

@Karkarov said:

Uh you don't get it. This research has been done, many, many times. There is no link. This is Obama wasting another 10 million taxpayer dollars so he can look good on tv and "appear" to be doing something about the issue of school shootings.

That's not true at all. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, several studies actually show that empathy is decreased over time, and aggression is increased momentarily. Are these studies conclusive? No, that's why we need to know more about the connection.

Those are short term effects, though, and it happens with any kind of violent media, be it video games, music, or movies.

No, the part about empathy is actually over time. And so what if that happens when consuming other media as well? We're talking about games now, and the "they did it too" argument doesn't fly in this thread.

#30 Posted by kmdrkul (3476 posts) -

I think it's as simple as a lot of people being unable to fully accept the possibility of video games having these effects. Knowledge is power, but I think a lot of video game users refuse to see that simple notion.

#31 Posted by Animasta (14643 posts) -

@Legion_ said:

@LikeaSsur said:

@Legion_ said:

@Karkarov said:

Uh you don't get it. This research has been done, many, many times. There is no link. This is Obama wasting another 10 million taxpayer dollars so he can look good on tv and "appear" to be doing something about the issue of school shootings.

That's not true at all. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, several studies actually show that empathy is decreased over time, and aggression is increased momentarily. Are these studies conclusive? No, that's why we need to know more about the connection.

Those are short term effects, though, and it happens with any kind of violent media, be it video games, music, or movies.

No, the part about empathy is actually over time. And so what if that happens when consuming other media as well? We're talking about games now, and the "they did it too" argument doesn't fly in this thread.

it's important to note that this is ALL violent media, games were mentioned specifically but it was all of it afaik

#32 Posted by ChinaDontCare (111 posts) -

Tax Payer money on this shit, WELCOME TO FUCKING AMERICA

#33 Posted by Video_Game_King (35848 posts) -

@The_Hiro_Abides said:

So while we've become accustomed to it, things are censored all the time for regular mass consumption.

To be fair, games have also been heavily censored, too. Just ask Nintendo of America or Atlus.

#34 Edited by EpicSteve (6470 posts) -

I think it's just stupid that people can't cope that some folks are crazy. This is an example of leadership doing things just to make it look like they're doing something. Some tragic events like Sandy Hook can't be prevented. Society will always have its psychos. You can ban high capacity magazines, or "assault weapons", even though the bulk of killing was committed with a simple handgun. Folks want a scapegoat. They want to blame guns for murder, spoons for making them fat, and videogames for children lacking empathy and being socially awkward. Unless you want an insane amount of armed security at schools and public places, no law or study would've prevented the latest mass shootings.

#35 Posted by The_Hiro_Abides (1249 posts) -

@Animasta: It screened poorly in test screenings that were shown shortly after the Columbine High school massacre and no company wanted to distribute it in the states. So yes you're right.

#36 Posted by planetfunksquad (399 posts) -

@Video_Game_King: Exactly. theres precedent. You can't just say it wont happen. It's very, very, very unlikely, yes. But not impossible.

#37 Posted by The_Hiro_Abides (1249 posts) -

@Video_Game_King: That's a good point. Nintendo has always been heavy handed with censorship. Especially during the NES and SNES days. No christian symbols allowed in games on our turf!

#38 Posted by Video_Game_King (35848 posts) -

@planetfunksquad said:

@Video_Game_King: Exactly. theres precedent. You can't just say it wont happen. It's very, very, very unlikely, yes. But not impossible.

Plus there's the fact that nowadays, games are more uniform because they're more often made for an international audience. (Or maybe I don't know too much about significant regional differences in modern times.)

#39 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4328 posts) -

@Animasta said:

people believe they'd actually ban video games, or violent ones, which is pretty hilarious.

Who was dumb enough to actually say that?

#40 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (4328 posts) -

@Karkarov said:

Uh you don't get it. This research has been done, many, many times. There is no link. This is Obama wasting another 10 million taxpayer dollars so he can look good on tv and "appear" to be doing something about the issue of school shootings.

This is my issue, we've already come to the conclusion that it's correlational....which isn't causational, that money could be better spent elsewhere but I guess it makes a good headline that the administration is doing something...

#41 Edited by planetfunksquad (399 posts) -

@Video_Game_King: I don't know about that part. Maybe? I know in germany they've been known to just straight chop parts out of a game if it's deemed inappropriate, so developers obviously don't take the Germans into account when making their games :)

EDIT: Y'know what? This thread has kinda derailed. The question was "Why are we so negative" not "Could this shit get banned or not", which is probably my fault.

To answer that question: Because we believe that we know all the answers and that any other stance comes from the ulterior motive of "we hate video games, ban that shit".

#42 Posted by The_Hiro_Abides (1249 posts) -

@EpicSteve: I agree with you. Some sort of mandatory mental health check would be better in the long run.

#43 Posted by Irvandus (2777 posts) -

For me personally it's because of how other countries governments affect the production and release of games. I'm also worried because of how the way comics got treated back in the day.

#44 Edited by Kidavenger (3488 posts) -

The problem is that 10 million in research is actually 10 million in some university's pocket to pay PhD students to conduct an idiotic survey and write a paper on it so they can hide from the real world for another year.

Guess what their finding will be? Somewhere between yes and inconclusive, because no relationship means they just wasted 10 million and accomplished nothing, can't have that, where's that next grant coming from...

It may sound cynical but I used to see stuff like this all the time in my last job.

#45 Posted by BaconGames (3285 posts) -

I think people are on the defensive because we all thought we were above this shit, that we were all past all this stuff. Research is research, sure, but the president commissioning a study using the biggest medical organization in the domestic US to do it is a political move (one I don't necessarily blame him for) that unfortunately implies a lot about what society thinks about video games. Recently I did a search in peer reviewed journals in the social sciences and found a good number of articles that either find short term affects or no relationship between game playing and aggression and I'm sure there are others with more definitive implications on violence/aggression.

Basically it's all a matter of experimental design and execution, at least that's what the psychology research is concerned with, but in criminology and sociology media almost always takes a back seat to other issues in explaining juvenile behavior and violent crime. Is that another potential factor? I think we can easily have something constructive to add if research can establish the role and social meaning of violence and violent media by those who do and who not exhibit violent characteristics. Besides it won't hurt to throw another variable in the good 'ole regression machine to account for more of the variance.

If video games can be blamed for anything, it's only taking part in the same visual exploration of sex and violence that has characterized our media world and our society at large for the last 70 years or so. Granted, Obama's initiative is to explore media violence in general, but unless this research is ready to contextualize violent media cross nationally and in depth in the cultural history of the united states, I can't see how finding more correlations will really add much to what we already know. Then again, this has been the story of a lot of research fields for years now, so I guess it's just a matter of time.

As people who play games this is a nice debate to have in the moment, and maybe a time to have conversations related to that, but it's sadly nothing more than what we've already seen after each male shooter also played "violent video games."

#46 Posted by hughesman (312 posts) -

@l4wd0g said:

The studies have been done. I have 100 scientific journal articles saying that video games lower empathy (and momentarily raise aggression). Games journalist and gamers just don't want to talk about it. I don't know why.

How exactly did these scientific journals qualify "lower empathy" and momentary raise in aggression?

#47 Posted by Karkarov (2942 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@Legion_ said:

@LikeaSsur said:

@Legion_ said:

@Karkarov said:

Uh you don't get it. This research has been done, many, many times. There is no link. This is Obama wasting another 10 million taxpayer dollars so he can look good on tv and "appear" to be doing something about the issue of school shootings.

That's not true at all. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, several studies actually show that empathy is decreased over time, and aggression is increased momentarily. Are these studies conclusive? No, that's why we need to know more about the connection.

Those are short term effects, though, and it happens with any kind of violent media, be it video games, music, or movies.

No, the part about empathy is actually over time. And so what if that happens when consuming other media as well? We're talking about games now, and the "they did it too" argument doesn't fly in this thread.

it's important to note that this is ALL violent media, games were mentioned specifically but it was all of it afaik

I am going to be brutally honest. Bullshit. I have played video games since I was 6 years old and I am the guy who will stop to hold the door open for a stranger or assist the old lady climbing some tough stairs. I worked tech support and or sales for a good chunk of my work life. Three months of tech support made me lose more empathy for humanity than 100 years of video games ever could.

#48 Posted by JasonR86 (9587 posts) -

Research should be entirely unbiased (hopefully, fingers crossed). The outcomes may not necessarily damn or applaud video games. Also hopefully they'll look at non-violent games to see if there are positive benefits to video games. This same logic should be applied to all the media being looked at. Again, hopefully.

#49 Posted by hoossy (932 posts) -

@ArtisanBreads said:

I am so negative for the reasoning itself... but honestly that is secondary.

The main thing is I am sick and tired as a citizen of seeing tax money spent and spent and the refusal to cut any spending in our government. How much debt must we be in before we deal with it? This is a completely unnecessary action.

It reminds me of that "Big Bird" mess during the election. It was a small cut to make, sure, but those add up. Our citizens and government are so unwilling to make any cuts and it will be too late before we do anything, at this rate.

Sorry, kind of secondary I suppose... but it's really not. Enough private research has been done.

*climbing up on stool*

I think it weighs out to what you believe is worth funding. I agree, more cuts should be made, but we have been moving in the right direction with a budget that will lower the deficit by 4 trillion dollars. For example, I'm for additional cutting of the defense budget and continuing support for a universal health care program that could save country a tremendous amount of money.

As for the "Big Bird" mess... the funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will always be a sticky political point. I, for one, support the funding of public radio and television, both with the government continuing that funding and through my own personal donations. The children's programming are some of the best in the world. The news reports are far more fair and balanced than I've seen or heard elsewhere, and its broadcasting supports a level of excellence and general pride in education that is severely lacking in the country.

*stepping off of my stool now*

(oh, as for research... I think it's worth investigating, at least to shut some people up)

#50 Posted by Legion_ (1254 posts) -

@Karkarov: But it's not bullshit, because everyone doesn't have the same mentality. So while violent video games may not have been a negative influence on you as a child, there's still a chance it has a negative influence on other. But I'm in the same boat as you, I've played video games since I was about 6 years old, and violent video games since I was around 15 I guess. Yet I always get complimented for my good maners and for always staying calm. This is however a personality trait that I learned from my parents, and we can't expect everyone to be the same. Base line is this, more research is needed, and therefore I say, research away.