Video Games- Too violent?

[nezzyjean]

I think that it depends on the responsibility of the kid, but personally they are being too harsh on the law, like I heard that ANY game that involves killing something with a sword or weapon even if it is goreless will not be sold to kids under the age of thirteen, that means that even Kingdom Hearts, which is only very mildly violent, will not be sold to kids. So basically its too harsh.

[Nate]

KINGDOM HEARTS CANNOT BE SOLD!? Oh my god! TO far! I say we kill BUSH!

Just kidding America, you know i love you!
For really, i don't mean that. You cannot beleive a word i say

[EMU]

I really think that the amount of violence that is in videogames these days is over rated. The media portrays it all as if it were the very thing that is tearing apart society as we know it. I believe that all people should undergo a psychio evaluation test when they reach 5 years of age, and then be reassessed again every 5 years after that. And that is not just so they can buy video games either. With the data i collect from these psycho evaluations, I shall rule the world!!! MUHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAA!!!!! *ahem* ^_^;;

What i mean is, video games are really not as violent as they are made out to be. Even in games such as Doom 3, it is clearly still computer generated, and therefore, a very large majority of people will be able to draw the line between which is real, and which is not.

People that cannot understand the difference between the two need to be permanately castrated. That way, their flawed DNA has little chance of infecting the gene pool.

[Charles]

I always find this subject interesting.

People argue that with the current level of technology available to developers, the representation of death and portrayal of violence in gaming has become [i]so[/i] realistic, that it's more efficient at desensitizing children. And, I'll agree that violent imagery can make children more aggressive. My youngest brother would want to horse around after watching an episode of [i]Power Rangers[/i], for instance.

But, I don't agree with the notion that higher quality graphical images make the games more addictive. And, I don't think that video games shape murderers.

First of all, it all begins with the parents. They have to provide the proper breeding. The parents must take the time to sit their children down and explain to them the difference between right and wrong. Children have to know that it's wrong to hurt others and should be chastised for getting rough. Plus, parents should help them displace the energy they get from watching shows like the aforementioned [i]Power Rangers.[/i] They should encourage their kids to go play football or something. And--children shouldn't come into contact with excessively violent material--period.

Parents should be [i]aware[/i] of what their children are watching and playing and become involved with their activities. Before buying their kids a product, the parents should do the proper research and [i]know[/i] what they're buying. Read the labels and play the game with their kids.

Now, I'll also add that I think that violence as a selling point in video games is exaggerated. Some of the best selling titles on the market. Look at games like [i]Animal Crossing, The Sims, Mario Sunshine, Ico, Zelda, Wave Race, Mario Kart[/i] etc.

And, look at games like [i]Medal of Honor[/i] that feature absolutely zero blood and are popular nonetheless. It's more of a learning experience than anything else.

Games like [i]Grand Theft Auto[/i] aren't only popular because of their content. It's all a matter of quality and fun. I think that the popularity of the GameBoy Advance proves that. It probably sells more than any other system and I've not seen anything featuring realistic gore.

So yeah, I don't see games as a major contributor to the destruction of morals. That issue would have to fall on the collapse of the family and the lack of parental involvement.

[The Vampire: Ed]

I don't know what I could lend to this topic, but I'll try.

As stated by others in this topic it is a parent's job, no, their moral responsibility to explain these things to their children. They should sit their child down and explain what is fiction, and what is reality. Children, especially at early ages, should be taught the differences between the two, and by not doing so it could possibly result in their children acting out these fantasies absorbed by watching television, playing video games, or seeing anything too violent.

My parents taught me these things as a child, and they stuck with me. I can understand phrases like these: [i]"With the current level of technology available to developers, the representation of death and portrayal of violence in gaming has become so realistic, that it's more efficient at desensitizing children."[/i]

As games have gotten more and more realistic in their depiction's it possibly makes the scenes more able to be associated with reality, mainly to the young ones who don't know better, mind you. But do I think they should pass laws banning them? No. If a parent can't sit their child down, and explain the things they see on TV, or play in video games are merely fiction made purely for entertainment, then it's the parent's fault not the game developer's. Even then, it's still a possibility that a child could do something wrong in society.

Sadly though, when a child pulls a gun on someone else the government immediately asks what the child was watching or playing. I mean it seems impossible to them that a child could have done it because they were seriously stressed out, and for some reason snapped. Perhaps they were just mentally unstable to begin with. But whatever the reason is it never matters, unless they can associate their problems with a video game or movie they were using.

It's just more ways the government gets to control people, and I certainly don't appreciate their accusations. Especially since, most likely, they have never actually played a video game in their lives or at least enough to know it's not all about violence.

It's also a lot like the complaint about women being in games, such as fighting. They really liked the fact that women could be portrayed as a female who could go toe to toe with men and actually win. But they complain when they also realized they could be beat up too. It's fine for those people to have women be in video games as long as they're winning or not being harmed, but if they're getting hurt in any way it's automatically degrading women. But that really makes no sense. Who is being degraded? A fictional female made of polygons, and pixels? How come every female in games automatically represent women as a whole when they're not they way they think a women should be?

It's all just getting ridiculous anymore.

I don't know if this post will make sense to others, because sometimes when I type it comes out wrong. But this is what I think, and hopefully I lend something to this thread.

[Guest cloricus]

I'd like to point out that there is [i]no[/i] conclusive link between violence and computer games. Some of the newer research has even gone as far to state that games are in fact an extremely good stress relief method and other things.

Personally I think this law is complete crap, true I personally I wouldn't let a five year old play some of the games I play but that's just common sense. The only time I draw the line on computer game age restrictions is when the new 3D VR games start coming out. There is a [b]massive[/b] difference between clicking to fire a weapon to kill someone in a game compared to VR where you will have to point, aim, and pull the trigger. Things that real need to be restricted.

Apart from that I will just sit back and laugh at the restrictions, because if I want a game I'll just ask my dad or mother to buy it. Hmm but thinking back to when I got gta3 they had to think about it...

Eps - Yay... :P

[Fall]

What the ****. I'm not surprised. I can't get any games of the like here even if I'm with my parents, anyway.

[DeathBug]

I must again summerize and say that the problem is that the parents don't want the took accept the responsibility for their children's behavior. They wish to be blameless, which is, of course, idiotic.

Fortunatly, when our generation comes of age, we'll be the more intelligent people who will *think* before stupid crap like this goes on.

BTW, I'm awaiting Doom III with baited breath. But can you imagine the firestorm that will appear when it's released? Never mind that it's an admittedly gorey 3-D version of one of the original violent video games. God, I get a headache just thinking about it.

[Red]

[color=054276][b]I find the fact that people link violence to video games hilarious. You simply cannot do that, it's not a valid argument.

Basically, someone arguing that point is saying that a form of media is causing violent behaviour. If this is the case - wouldn't it be the same for things such as movies?

I've even seen some really disturbing pictures on the news before; dead bodies, [i]real[/i] blood and terrible injuries...not fake images.

Of course, this isn't to say I'd go and let one of my smaller relatives go ahead and play a really violent game. But, I don't think it effects behaviour.

In fact, I'd say that movies influence violent behaviour more, since a child is seeing a [i]real[/i] person do [i]real[/i] things. (of course not in cartoons, but even in movies with edited fight scenes like the matrix, it looks real to a kid).

Overall, a lot of games are quite violent. I've been playing video games since I could walk and I've always been able to have a clear distinction of whats real and whats not, in the sense that something I see in a game is entirely fictional and shouldn't influence me in any real way. Anyway, that's what age restrictions are for on the really 'bad' games.[/b][/color]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Of course it is all the parents fault, isn't it. Some kids, many I know and including myself, are just plain violent. From even no source are describing details that are only seen in some M-rated games. It is the person themselves for being violent and no one else is to blame.

I wouldn't agree to not letting a person get a game even when their parents are their.

[vegeta rocker]

I think everyone into video games here can admit that they have an effect on you. It depends on the game and how far they go with enforcing it. Like when GTA 3 was banned in Australia, that is going too far. But in the same breath i can say that there is no way i want my little brother playing that game. I play resident evil and Doom and that doesn't make me increasingly violent. But then again i wasn't brought up on them. I was brought up on wholesome sega and nintendo games. we have a base of sonic and mario. But at the same time we also had street fighter and the likes.

The way things are now is the industry is trying to make nearly everything violent and bloody. I couldn't believe it when the spokesperson for NIntendo said he wanted to eradicate the kiddie persona of the company. the way things are now i wouldn't buy my 12 year old bro a ps2. No way in hell.

But i still don't think that you can place blame on them for making someone violent. I think the most drastic effect would be desensitizing. I didn't realize how desensitized i was when i took my dreamcast to my friends house. it was about midnight and i popped in resident evil CV and she dropped the control and freaked. Blaming video games for violence is irresponsible.

When it comes to ratings they should be enforced. Kids shouldn't have a problem with T but they shouldn't go near M.

[eleanor]

I believe you can link change in behavior to video games. Sure, television/movies and whatnot has lots of violence also, but in video games you're the one causing the damage. Even I got more violent after my period of nonstop video game playing, and I hardly ever watch movies. And TV? I watch it about two times a year.

[Decadence]

yes vidio games influence behavior a little bit... well maybe not behavior but more like desensitize us from violence and such. but the lawmakers missed this side "better to let a pissed off kid beat the living S*** outa a vidio game charecter then some one real" i meen i when i get mad at my friends or somthin i go play a fighting/ shooting game and just go and destroy the comp it calms me down and i dont feel half as mad at the person as i did before i just take it out on something that cant feel it cuz punching a pillow doesnt help me

[Shinmaru]

All there is to it is that it's up to the parents to enforce the ratings and to make sure that their kids minds aren't warped by violent video games. That's all there is to it.

[Osmosis]

Personally I think the whole "video games cause violence" thing is bollucks. Why? Well for one, video games really are a sort of a luxury good. I highly doubt that people in many violent areas in the world even have access to video and computer games. And yet we see that they can be just as violent if not more so than people who have access to this kind of entertainment.

Warning: gruesome picture below-
[URL=http://]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030517/168/43iy4.html&e=5[/URL]

For example, I highly doubt that suicide bomber grew up playing Grand Theft Auto 3 or Half-Life. People tend to be naturally violent. I mean when we were all little kids playing in the school playground, you ever notice how often we say we're going to kill each other? I mean if video games were the way that people get violent, then surely we wouldn't have had such little events like the World Wars, or the Napoleonic Wars, the Hundred Years War, the Roman Empire's brutal subjugation of most of the known world, the Punic Wars, and the Assyrian Empire's rather callous baby killing?:rolleyes:

[Guest cloricus]

Osmosis, I'm not to sure what the limit to the amount of "gore" you can have in a picture on Otaku Boards is considering the [i]younger[/i] audience it serves, but I get the distinct idea that that is way beyond what should be posted. Also in future to post a link url use the tags [url][/ url] around it. Or [url=website here]text here [/ url]. They help people click to the place and look cooler. :P

I'd add that that picture is at least an m15+ rating, though I'm not sure how real it is?

Eps -

[Solo Tremaine]

I don't think adults give some children enough credit. The thing about video games (or the vast majority of them at least) is that they don't look anywhere near as realistic as things in real life. The problems comes in games like Hitman 2 when the lines between fantasy and reality start to blur, which hyper-realistic death animations and situations. I'm not saying this applies to everyone, but it could be a contributing factor to violence. But it would only be in those with a certain predisposition to violence.

People love a scapegoat. They don't want to think that the parents might be the cause of the problem by maybe not talking to their children at all and then wondering why they go out and gun down a whole classroom. A lot of things are treated unfairly because of the media launching upon it trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Mind you, having said that, I don't like video games that are too violent. I myself wouldn't want to play Hitman 2 because it just seems to realistic for my liking. There has to be an element of fantasy in there for it to stay 'comfortably violent' without being like an interactive Tarantino movie. But that's just me. I'm sure the vast majority of people who play these games have sense enough to know when the boundries of the video game stop. But in psychopaths this isn't so clear. Games don't make them do it, but it might fuel their desire to. And really, you can't say that games don't get you stressed at all. They do me, and I very rarely get angry. Usually when I've been beaten I get fairly ratty for a few minutes afterwards, but it passes after that.

In places where the agression is maintained, e.g after playing in an arcade, getting beaten and then being shouted at by a teacher for being late, there may be a heightened possibility of violence happening.

As has been said, I think it mostly lies with the parents' responsibility to make sure their child behaves sensibly. They aren't completely safe, computer games, but they are safer than some scaremongers make them out to be.

[MillieFan]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Solo Tremaine [/i]
[B]I don't think adults give some children enough credit. The thing about video games (or the vast majority of them at least) is that they don't look anywhere near as realistic as things in real life. The problems comes in games like Hitman 2 when the lines between fantasy and reality start to blur, which hyper-realistic death animations and situations. I'm not saying this applies to everyone, but it could be a contributing factor to violence. But it would only be in those with a certain predisposition to violence.

People love a scapegoat. They don't want to think that the parents might be the cause of the problem by maybe not talking to their children at all and then wondering why they go out and gun down a whole classroom. A lot of things are treated unfairly because of the media launching upon it trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Mind you, having said that, I don't like video games that are too violent. I myself wouldn't want to play Hitman 2 because it just seems to realistic for my liking. There has to be an element of fantasy in there for it to stay 'comfortably violent' without being like an interactive Tarantino movie. But that's just me. I'm sure the vast majority of people who play these games have sense enough to know when the boundries of the video game stop. But in psychopaths this isn't so clear. Games don't make them do it, but it might fuel their desire to. And really, you can't say that games don't get you stressed at all. They do me, and I very rarely get angry. Usually when I've been beaten I get fairly ratty for a few minutes afterwards, but it passes after that.

In places where the agression is maintained, e.g after playing in an arcade, getting beaten and then being shouted at by a teacher for being late, there may be a heightened possibility of violence happening.

As has been said, I think it mostly lies with the parents' responsibility to make sure their child behaves sensibly. They aren't completely safe, computer games, but they are safer than some scaremongers make them out to be. [/B][/QUOTE]

I must agree with Solo. I'm personally not into the M rated games because they are all really, really dumb and usually rely on the gore and sex to drive the plot, and I'm old enough to if I wanted to, but I still don't care. It's just not my thing.

That said, I think the Washington law is *stupid.* Rather than using the rating as a basis for the law (which I had hoped would be done, and which is the best way to legislate), it uses "any game that depicts a human being harming another human being," without listing the extent of the harm, without detailing whether implied harm is as punishable as depicted harm, without stating the context of the harm, blah blah blah.

In other words, the law as such could condemn a scene showing a human character threatening but refusing to injure another human character as easily as it could condemn a gory and senseless killing. It could condemn, say, an implied or mostly implied scene like the destruction of Lindblum in FFIX as easily as it could condemn a first person shooter. It could condemn a scene that's only there to establish a character's past, used to state why the character opposes violence (and therefore having an anti-violence message) as equally as it could be used to condemn GTA or whatnot.

I'm saying that they need to specify that it is only M rated games that are banned for anyone under 17 (good law for anywhere), and that they also need to specify that depictions banned under the law must be directly depicted and initiated by the player.

[TheShinje]

[size=1][color=darkblue] :laugh:

Anyone notice how people love to blame video games and pop culture when they shoot up someone?

There is a cse pending at the moment with a defendant claiming insanity because he thought he lived inside the Matrix. That is the most ****ed up thing I've ever heard, and can you really believe him? Has anyone seen One Flew over the Cukoos nest?

Can they really honestly say they thought they were Tommy Vercetti running missions from the mob? Can you say that you have a bloodlust just because you saw a bit of pixellated red n your monitor? If those games like Halflife, Doom, Quake and GTA istill a bloodlust into todays youth, that must mean you you blame pickpoceting on a fetish to be like Superfrog and collect golden coins to free a princees held in a moon base by an evil witch, no?

If they can't grasp reality, or are "invoked by the Satanic idiot box to kill their mother", then they belong in the mental healthcare, period. They are not better than Charles Manson, who claims the Beatles White album had Satan speaking to him, [i] to go and kill one of the artist of the white album![/i][/size][/color]

[James]

[color=#808080]I think there are a few basic points to make about this long running discussion.

Firstly, video games are no different than any other form of entertainment (be it music or movies, for example). Various public officials and private groups want to treat video games differently to both movies and music by not only creating are more strict ratings system, but by also binding the hands of developers and discouraging them from creative freedom.

And really, there are a few things to remember here. The video game rating system is generally appropriate. Games suitable for older audiences are generally not being marketed to kids and their ratings are usually adequate.

So where does the real problem lie? The parents and the retailers.

Parents who complain about violent video games are, in my opinion, washing their hands of responsibility. They are essentially asking for publishers to only ever publish child-friendly games, so that parents don't have to make any effort to be aware of what purchasing decisions their children are making. That is an obvious disregard of parental responsibility.

Just as parents should monitor what their kids watch on TV or see on the Internet, they also need to be aware of both video game ratings (which are insanely simple to understand) and the actual games that their kids are buying. If parents check the rating (and even read the blurb on the back cover), they're going to get a fair idea about what the game's content is like. And thus, the problem is solved.

Retailers are mostly pretty good, but some out there are not obeying the laws that relate to selling games with various ratings to kids under that age group. It can be hard to make the distinction, but sometimes retailers blatantly ignore a "17+" game and sell it to a kid who is obviously a 10 year old or something. Clearly, retailers have to be brought into line on that point.

But that whole argument relates to kids getting their hands on violent games in the first place. It doesn't relate to any effect that these games might actually have on kids.

On this question, there is some evidence to suggest that violent games make kids more excited after they've played for a few minutes. So that excitement could translate to violence (in the case of a more aggressive child) or simply talking too much (in the case of a chatterbox lol).

And while that's all fine and good, some people are trying to point to these studies as proof that violent games breed violent children. That is false; it is a misinterpretation of existing studies.

These games will only affect kids if they are predisposed to violent behavior. They won't [i]make[/i] a passive child become violent. That notion is ridiculous.

Throughout my entire life, I've played violent games - and yet I am a peaceloving person who is absolutely horrified by real life violence. Violent games have also definitely not desensitised me to violence whatsoever; in real life, I am just as sensitive to violent behavior as I always was. So I don't really buy the desensitisation argument either.

Also, let's look at a particular case where games were blamed. Look at the Columbine High School shootings.

After that terrible incident happened, people were pointing to the fact that the killers played Doom and that they had commented that it'd given them ideas.

What they [i]fail[/i] to mention, is that BOTH students were taking mind-altering anti-depressants...which are [i]proven[/i] to affect behavior. In particular, anti-depressants have been shown to cause violent tendancies and to lower tolerance levels when it comes to dealing with stressful situations.

So you see, video games are the scapegoat in that situation. The parents are either ignoring (or are unwilling to accept) the fact that their kids were taking substances that altered their behavior. Oh no...that might just cast some doubt on the treatment that they were being given! How terrible.

Also, people act as though this "problem" is recent with the invention of games. But it's not. In decades past, parents would blame violent and delinquent behavior on rock music or horror movies. Video games are just the latest trend to be targeted.

The Columbine HS killers would have done the very same thing with or without Doom. If Doom hadn't influenced them, Marilyn Manson would have. Do you see my point? A person predisposed to violent behavior isn't being pushed into action by an outside media source. Rather, they are actively seeking out these media sources to fulfill their violent desires.

So it's not a question of these kids having Doom in their house affecting their minds. It's a question of these kids [i]already[/i] having violent tendences and simply feeding on anything that satisfies it. By the logic that some use, we shouldn't just ban violent games - but we should also ban any kind of "exciting" music, novels, movies, news television and published articles, etc etc

And then, of course, it would [i]still[/i] happen. This violence would continue. And then who do we blame? The next door neighbours' cat?[/color]

[Sui Generis]

The whole thing is I don't think its the video games at all like I've said.

I mean if you litsen to Barney are you going to go hug someone. I mean lets be realistic. Sure with an ity bity kid who wathces him EVERY day maybe, but I mean thats also with the parents help and the fact that other kids are doing it.

These studies seem to leave out one important factor. Peer pressure. Kids see their dad shooting some deer and they think "Hey thats cool." Kids watch how much attention a murder gets on TV and they think "Hey I could be on TV!" Now I'm not saying these factors make a kid go on a rampage and kill everyone they know.

Smashing a fly would have more of a violent affect on a kid then playing Halo where you run around and kill [I]ALIENS[/I] . I mean sure they could have humans killing humans restricted to where the kid would have to be a proven teen or something.

I think the kid should have to be there for a teen rating for him to get the game, that'd HELP solve the problems of little kids getting games they're not supposed to get.

Also who makes a decision in your life. Do you or your parents decide to eat cereal? Do you or your parents decide to drink the milk instead of the orange juice?

You make your own choices even as a kid, thats why kids get in so much trouble. They make choices while they are still un-educated. Its not the parents fault entirely. Sure they can stress non-violence as much as they want, but its the kid's choice to load the gun and cock it then aim and shoot.

The parent isn't in the kids mind, they can't tell what exactly he or she is going to do.

Saying its completely the parents fault is like saying its the coaches fault that I struck out. Its the teachers fault I flunked.

In some cases its true, sure a parent might give the kid the gun and load it for him/her BUT he/she is the one that has to pull the trigger. I mean but face it that scenerio isn't likely.

I don't think blaming it on one specific thing is going to get us anywhere, I think its a combination of hundreds if not thousands of things.

Where animals in all reality and if you haven't noticed this is a violent world, animals are violent. Its only NATURAL that we'd be violent. *shrugs*

Food for thought

[Guest Matt]

[color=red][b]Well, they can never stop supposid "underage" people from buying games. Just buy them off the internet. No problem there.

Now, let me show you this really old Penny-Arcade comic:
[img]http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/1998/19981209l.jpg[/img]
:)

Ok, I don't think videogames cause violent tendencies. I grew up on DOOM and Wolfenstien 3D. I go hunting, I own guns. I am not violent towards other people. I play games like Raven Shield, Ghost Recon, Unreal Tournament 2k3, Half-Life, GTA III, GTA: Vice City ect... on a regular basis. All of them are rated M, and I don't feel like going around with my guns and car shooting and killing.

I hate how kids (or adults for that matter) blame videogames for violence. It's not because of the game, its because "sh*tty parents raise sh*tty kids." Jesus, if the parents of the Columbine killers (that supposidly learned to kill off DOOM, lol) actually went into the kids room, they would know what they were planning. Shotgun stocks, ammo, etc... was found in the open in the kids room. Lack or parenting is to blame for most of it.

I have alot more to say, but I have to leave. I'll post more later.[/b][/color]

[eleanor]

Even though the parents and retailers are a main part of the problem, it doesn't really matter. I'm just trying to get the point across that when kids do play violent games all the time, whether their parents got them or they got it themselves, I still believe it tends to make someone more aggresive.

[James]

[color=#808080]It will only make you more aggressive if you have a predisposition to violent tendencies; various studies have made this conclusion so far.[/color]

[eleanor]

Don't all humans have violence in them?
You may be right, though. :/