Anti-games debate.

[OutforEC]

Let me pose this question then: If a game were to be designed with the sole purpose of conditioning its audience to commit acts of violence, without regard to entertainment value or enlightnement, should it be accepted?

Personally, I believe it should go through the same exact process that every game goes through. I believe we should let the consumer determine whether or not it is of value instead of legislating morality, but more than likely any 'game' without entertainment value would fail on its own lack of merits. Normally in such a case, the outrage voiced by those opposed to these games actually creates more demand than would be the case without their interference.

 

[staika]

I sometimes have imaginary debates with myself (Don't give me those looks) and I try to play out both sides and whenever I do video games the only real thing the con side can say is that video games can cause people to mimic the actions in the video games which is then countered by "That only happens in the very small minority of gamers and the only reason it sounds bigger than it is, is because you only hear the bad stuff on the news concerning this topic but in reality it happens very rarely." yeah I just owned myself in that debate.

 

[czfjrod]

Just because some developer wants to make a really controversial game doesn't mean the entire industry should be to blame. I mean, saying that Postal 2 and Call of Duty represent video games as a medium is like saying South Park and Jersey Shore represent TV as a medium, which neither are true.

There are good games and bad games out there, and the bad games shouldn't bring the good games into the hole with them. But I'm really disappointed that a majority of the games most talked are being portrayed as bad, which means people are gonna start thinking the medium is going to suffer a death more painful than 1983.

I am sick mostly, though, at the fact that some people tolerate bad games, while others rant on about "how bad it and the industry are". Seriously, just ignore them and let them pass before some good games come out.

 

[AlexNora]

Let me pose this question then: If a game were to be designed with the sole purpose of conditioning its audience to commit acts of violence, without regard to entertainment value or enlightnement, should it be accepted?

this is hard to answer because first you need to prove video games are a somewhat effective means of condition a persons decision making. But even if you do, that does not matter because if video games are a more effective means of teaching or influencing a person then say, reading that ability could just as likely be used to teach people to be charitable and kind.

so the real question becomes should anything that sends the wrong message be censored.

and

are games like grand theft auto really trying to convince you to become a cars thief that goes around recklessly running people over?

i doubt it is. if you play the game "with no cheats" it more or less teaches you that such recklessness is followed by reckless police men that will contiguously hunt you down till you die.

 

[www.2geeks1donkey.com]

Playing video games is rarely interpreted as an action the gamer does. The gamer never plays themself, in their mind they are playing a specific charactor or a soldier in a war. Most people can differentiate, and playing violent video games shouldn't interfere with their lives.

Some studies have shown that video games increase cognitive capacity, and some have shown to decrease them. As far as facts go, this subject is still under scrutiny. However, violence in real life associated with video games is overhyped in the media. Kids don't kill their parents because they play violent games; they might do this because they have a poor social situation and have become reliant on an electronic box for human interaction/ activities.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Let me pose this question then: If a game were to be designed with the sole purpose of conditioning its audience to commit acts of violence, without regard to entertainment value or enlightnement, should it be accepted?

Books geared to incite violence are allowed. Books that preach hatred are allowed. Music as well. Even old timey movies used to promote hatred. However this media falls into the category of propaganda. Such a game would also be propaganda, because I doubt senseless, undirected violence would be the aim of most propaganda. Generally, when someone wants violence, they want it directed at some particular target.

 

[Racecarlock]

It depends on how one interprets a game really. For example, you could play through Call Of Duty 4 and think about how it depicts the horrors of war and such, or you could think about how it was nutty shooty fun woohoo. And sure, thinking about the horrors of war has a negative effect, but only on the mood, and you do learn something. Damn, look at me talking about a game i've never played. Anywho, I really don't think that first person shooters and other violent games have driven anyone with a normal brain to going on a shooting rampage. If that was true, there would be a hell of alot more cases of video game motivated shooting rampages. The unfortunate counter to this argument is that a murder or robber was once within 50 miles of an xbox, and therefore received its mind control signal or whatever and thus began his life of crime.

As for censorship, that's also bullshit. What do adults think will happen to kids if they see a tit or hear an uncensored swear word? Go on a one month crime spree? Does his brain automatically become damaged or something? And I don't think readiness to make big life choices should be determined by age, but rather by how a person acts. Okay, that's a bit harder to verify, but at least it's better than thinking that turning 18 magically makes you responsible and level headed. I don't think obscene material will hold any power over anyone if they'd simply stop taking it as a personal offense. That's what's really going on. People get offended by violence and sex in any form of media, therefore they want it banned. The trouble is that they can't just say that or they'll be laughed out of court, so they've latched onto the tissue thin "We're protecting the children!" excuse. The only problem with that excuse is that every child learns every swear word by the time they reach 5th grade, so censoring the words won't do any good, plus the children will then start swearing themselves just to see how much they'll piss of the adults. Children will always be rebellious, and you can't blame that all on games. Hey, why don't parents just stop using their bullshit excuses and just admit that they suck at parenting? Because that would soil their image as an angel parent sent down from heaven to foster the next messiah, who sneaks dads' playboys from behind his back. I still have to deal with this crap at 17. Not with my parents, they know I can handle mature content. However, Microsoft fished my age out of my hotmail account when I made my live profile and so now I can't download any M rated games or demos, even though I am 17 and 17+ is what it says on the box, not 18+. So it even effects me even when my parents don't restrict me from mature content. So yeah, censorship can go fuck itself.

 

[Grey Walker]

Personally, I would like it if games were given the same attention and respect as other forms of media. Determining the effect of various games on the minds of players is something that is worth examining, but it should be done by people who respect and understand the medium. You wouldn't ask someone who is an expert in writing to determine the effects watching a movie has on an audience.

That being said, I believe that some games do have a stronger influence on the player than a movie or book with similar subject matter does. The nature of many games is that the player is controlling a character, meaning that the character's actions are the player's responsibility.

I believe this creates a stronger emotional connection between the player and the game, allowing for a much richer experience. The problem is that whenever this is applied as a negative influence, the knee jerk reaction is to say: "They're just games. I can tell the difference between reality and fantasy."

While that is true in many cases, the emotions that games can create are, in my opinion, not exclusive to the game world.

Suppose you played a game with heavily racist overtones, but did not have any countering messages from society. Would you believe that tolerance was right, or would you follow the emotions created by the game? Now this of course applies to other media as well, but whether the emotions have a greater impact in the game medium or not should be examined.

Just my 2 cents on the issue.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Triumph of the Will exists, but it does not make all movies evil or dangerous. A game can also be used for propaganda*, but so can any artform or medium. (This doesn't mean that devs shouldn't be mindful of how their game can accidentally be a propaganda tool.)

*Thankfully there has yet to be a game equivalent of Triumph of the Will.

 

[loc978]

Well not all scribbles on paper are art either.

Actually, they are. The only qualifier for something to be technically defined as "art" is that it has to be the product of human effort and creativity. Write your name in the snow with pee? That's art. ET for the Atari 2600? That too.

OT: As for why we should accept violent games, well... there is a warning label on the damn things in the form of ratings (E through M... or Ao really, where I reside), so if someone's impressionable kids are playing them, those people should be watching their kids more closely. If they alter the perception of an adult to the point of causing them to take action, that person failed to be a responsible adult, and should face the consequences. We don't ban the sale of insane, morally bankrupt, subversive literature [http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037], so why would we ban video games that merely depict stylized violence?

 

[Raskolnikov34]

"I believe that censorship is worse for society than negative media by far" I'm sure Socrates would agree.

Censorship would lead to only one point of view being voiced, which would itself be negative media.

Thats one reason I think it is worse. Too much censorship leads to doublespeak and devolution of language to pure falsehood. Plus art is severely compromised int he presence of censorship and society suffers from less creativity.

Exactly, though as games don't really contribute much to society as art, in my opinion society wouldn't suffer much by the censorship of it.

Games could at one point in the future "mature" though, so they shouldn't be censored despite this.

There are a few games that definitely qualify as art. Besides some rpgs having walls of text to rival a novel (I particularly liked the scattered books in Morrowind which gave a great amount of background,) there are games that are done specifically to convey an artistic message. "Every Day the Same Dream," Samarost, The Void, and Zen Bound are good examples.

Exactly, only a handful...

 

[Sore Thumbs]

Just because some developer wants to make a really controversial game doesn't mean the entire industry should be to blame. I mean, saying that Postal 2 and Call of Duty represent video games as a medium is like saying South Park and Jersey Shore represent TV as a medium, which neither are true.

There are good games and bad games out there, and the bad games shouldn't bring the good games into the hole with them. But I'm really disappointed that a majority of the games most talked are being portrayed as bad, which means people are gonna start thinking the medium is going to suffer a death more painful than 1983.

I am sick mostly, though, at the fact that some people tolerate bad games, while others rant on about "how bad it and the industry are". Seriously, just ignore them and let them pass before some good games come out.

I was flabberghast because I thought you said Portal 2 instead of Postal 2 lol