Anti-Video game propaganda... Your thoughts?
- Thread starter astaldodhol
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Does anybody here have a psychology degree/postgraduate thesis to write?
Lets do a study ourselves on games. mesuring brain activity at different points comparing violent images in movies to violent images in games with various age groups. taking reactions from new gamers and old gamers and non gamers and pro gamers and new gamers.
I'm all for getting rid of anti gaming propaganda, but lets load our guns first, shall we?
Lets do a study ourselves on games. mesuring brain activity at different points comparing violent images in movies to violent images in games with various age groups. taking reactions from new gamers and old gamers and non gamers and pro gamers and new gamers.
I'm all for getting rid of anti gaming propaganda, but lets load our guns first, shall we?
5000 kills in a day?
I'm certain I've never even hit 1000 in a day, and I've beat Spartan: Total Warrior.
I'm certain I've never even hit 1000 in a day, and I've beat Spartan: Total Warrior.
cleverlymadeup post=18.72956.779175 said:
I'm to sure you're grasping just how violent it is. Genocide, systemic rape, pedophilia, all sanctified by God as just.NewClassic said:
If it was any OTHER book, it'd be banned so fast as to violate relativity.
Before you ask: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2031;&version=9;
Because eye-for-an-eye they outnumber us?NewClassic said:
It's just the Parent Groups (They) saying that They don't like the way the world is being run and if that They had their way, the world would be all rainbows and happyness.
It annoys me that They assume that it's the video games that teach their children to kill and violence in video games is a terrible thing but they're happy to watch the War in Iraq. It's easier to blame their children's stupidity on something that isn't their parenting.
It annoys me that They assume that it's the video games that teach their children to kill and violence in video games is a terrible thing but they're happy to watch the War in Iraq. It's easier to blame their children's stupidity on something that isn't their parenting.
I don't think you're helping matters by referring to them as "they" and assigning uniform characteristics to such a heterogeneous group.Radelaide post=18.72956.779595 said:
You know, kind of like they do to us?
Don't judge me too harshly for this; I'm just trying to point out the other side of the debate, so that this doesn't become just a flame thread. Those annoy me.
About two years ago my uncle, a decorated Green Berett, died in Iraq. After his burial in Arlington National Cemetary, there was a memorial held for him in his hometown, which I attended. While we were there, a religious group from Tenesee (I think it was) interrupted our memorial by shouting such statements as "THE ARMY IS GAY!", "AMRICA IS GOING TO HELL!", and other such slanderous statements. After they did this for about fifteen minutes, everyone, disheartened, left (on a side note, a couple of them, including my grandmother, were followed home and harassed there. Most of them were arrested, but I know for a fact that a couple of the ones that harassed my grandmother had to be taken to a hospital; another one of my uncles apparently beat the ever-loving shit out of them).
A couple of weeks later, my grandmother (this is when we were still on speaking terms) hands me several pieces of paper and says that I need to get as many signatures as I can on it. It was a petition for a bill, the Let Them Rest In Peace Act. It would prohibit petitioners from entering a 200 yard radius of a funeral or a memorial. Well long story short, it passed (I personally got at least 1000 signatures, including most of my teachers and classmates; I made a formal request during first hour the day I got it) unanamously.
About a week later, the ACLU field a counter claim, stating that the bill "stomped on the first amendment". I kid you not. While it may be true that it destroyed their first amendment rights, all they were doing was slandering a dead soldier and our country.
Let me turn that around, so you can see it from the perspective of someone who doesn't aprove of violent video games, "Why do your first amendment rights superceed my child's mental saftey? If these games do cause violence, then developers shouldn't even be allowed to make them."
On some level they have a point; while some violent games do, in fact, have a point (I'd hold up COD4 and Half-life (well, everything after the original half-life) as a reference, and perhaps DMC3, because that was one hell of a point in my eyes) most of them are just insipid boom-feasts. Does that mean they cause violence, or that they should be banned, even if they don't? No; but it makes the point that much harder to defend. An art form is only as good as it's best work, and if no one can find it's best work, then it's a moot point anyway.
I've taken it upon myself to highlight certain points of contention for your viewing pleasure. Or, more, so you won't be as confused by what I'm going to say.
1) This isn't nessecarally true. The parents who buy mature games for their children either
A, by which I mean the most part) belive their children are mature enough to know that video games aren't real (EDIT: These people don't complain to anyone about the violence in video games because they know about it) and
B, by which I mean the people you hear about) think of video games specificaly in the terms of Tetris.
Meaning the people you hear about don't know that there are games like GTA or Manhunt. They probobly lead very busy lives, and dont' watch much TV, so they don't see the advertisements, as few as they are. That means they're genuinely surprised when these games turn out to be as violent as they are. And they pitch a fucking fit, because even thought they don't spend nearly enough time with their children, they do genuinely care about them.
Or it could be the kid's grandmother coming in to see him having digital sex. One of the two.
2) No. This isn't true at all. Retailers aren't supposed to sell mature games to minors and storetenders, for the most part, don't sell mature games to minors, you can't possibly say that all storetenders don't sell video games to minors at all. There was a point, if I remember correctly, when everyone was either unaware or didn't care about video game ratings. This is going to automatically envoke the response, once the general public becomes aware of the level of violence in some games, that they have to make the laws stronger, which is going to entail the possibility of banning some games. We are still dealing with this. You can't just ignore it, because it's a major part of their argument. You have to deal with the problem up front.
In order to counter an argument, you have to know exactly what that argument is; what's more, if an argument is in fact, baseless, then you should be able to prove its baselessness (look, mommy, I made a new word!). Instead of slinging mud at each other, let's completely dismantle the opposition's arguments and prove them to be nothing but uneducated dribble. I'll even start it off...
Any sort of effective counter-argument to an anti-video game argument is that you can't dismiss an entire art form just because you don't apreciate it's material, because most of the people who make these arguments don't apreciate video games as an art form. I don't particurally understand painitings (or photography) but that's not to say I don't respect them as an art form. If you want to really blow a person up, try using debate as an example.
Let's continue on this track; instead of saying "this is bullcrap and I adamantly disagee with it" over and over again, let's all try to make an argument supporting our case. That's the intellegent thing to do, right?
Apologies Abound
Note: *sigh* That took me almost an hour to do, ya know...
While this may very well be true, a country also has the right to protect the moral integrety of it's people, even if it means stamping on the first amendment. To put this in perspective, let me use a much different example that constitutes, in essentiallity, exactly what you're saying.Jobz post=18.72956.779277 said:
About two years ago my uncle, a decorated Green Berett, died in Iraq. After his burial in Arlington National Cemetary, there was a memorial held for him in his hometown, which I attended. While we were there, a religious group from Tenesee (I think it was) interrupted our memorial by shouting such statements as "THE ARMY IS GAY!", "AMRICA IS GOING TO HELL!", and other such slanderous statements. After they did this for about fifteen minutes, everyone, disheartened, left (on a side note, a couple of them, including my grandmother, were followed home and harassed there. Most of them were arrested, but I know for a fact that a couple of the ones that harassed my grandmother had to be taken to a hospital; another one of my uncles apparently beat the ever-loving shit out of them).
A couple of weeks later, my grandmother (this is when we were still on speaking terms) hands me several pieces of paper and says that I need to get as many signatures as I can on it. It was a petition for a bill, the Let Them Rest In Peace Act. It would prohibit petitioners from entering a 200 yard radius of a funeral or a memorial. Well long story short, it passed (I personally got at least 1000 signatures, including most of my teachers and classmates; I made a formal request during first hour the day I got it) unanamously.
About a week later, the ACLU field a counter claim, stating that the bill "stomped on the first amendment". I kid you not. While it may be true that it destroyed their first amendment rights, all they were doing was slandering a dead soldier and our country.
Let me turn that around, so you can see it from the perspective of someone who doesn't aprove of violent video games, "Why do your first amendment rights superceed my child's mental saftey? If these games do cause violence, then developers shouldn't even be allowed to make them."
On some level they have a point; while some violent games do, in fact, have a point (I'd hold up COD4 and Half-life (well, everything after the original half-life) as a reference, and perhaps DMC3, because that was one hell of a point in my eyes) most of them are just insipid boom-feasts. Does that mean they cause violence, or that they should be banned, even if they don't? No; but it makes the point that much harder to defend. An art form is only as good as it's best work, and if no one can find it's best work, then it's a moot point anyway.
I've taken it upon myself to highlight certain points of contention for your viewing pleasure. Or, more, so you won't be as confused by what I'm going to say.
Here's where I start to get insulted. First off, this is self supportive bullcrap. You're trying to prove yourself right by generalizing things. Let me correct you on a couple of matters.Jobz post=18.72956.779277 said:
1) This isn't nessecarally true. The parents who buy mature games for their children either
A, by which I mean the most part) belive their children are mature enough to know that video games aren't real (EDIT: These people don't complain to anyone about the violence in video games because they know about it) and
B, by which I mean the people you hear about) think of video games specificaly in the terms of Tetris.
Meaning the people you hear about don't know that there are games like GTA or Manhunt. They probobly lead very busy lives, and dont' watch much TV, so they don't see the advertisements, as few as they are. That means they're genuinely surprised when these games turn out to be as violent as they are. And they pitch a fucking fit, because even thought they don't spend nearly enough time with their children, they do genuinely care about them.
Or it could be the kid's grandmother coming in to see him having digital sex. One of the two.
2) No. This isn't true at all. Retailers aren't supposed to sell mature games to minors and storetenders, for the most part, don't sell mature games to minors, you can't possibly say that all storetenders don't sell video games to minors at all. There was a point, if I remember correctly, when everyone was either unaware or didn't care about video game ratings. This is going to automatically envoke the response, once the general public becomes aware of the level of violence in some games, that they have to make the laws stronger, which is going to entail the possibility of banning some games. We are still dealing with this. You can't just ignore it, because it's a major part of their argument. You have to deal with the problem up front.
Yes, the video game studies are inconclusive, which is the reason nothing extreme is being done, but some of these people are the same people that belive that even the threat of nuclear terrorism constitutes the invasion of a foreign nation. If there is even a possibility that video games could cause violent behavior, then that threat needs to be eliminated.Jobz post=18.72956.779277 said:
In order to counter an argument, you have to know exactly what that argument is; what's more, if an argument is in fact, baseless, then you should be able to prove its baselessness (look, mommy, I made a new word!). Instead of slinging mud at each other, let's completely dismantle the opposition's arguments and prove them to be nothing but uneducated dribble. I'll even start it off...
Any sort of effective counter-argument to an anti-video game argument is that you can't dismiss an entire art form just because you don't apreciate it's material, because most of the people who make these arguments don't apreciate video games as an art form. I don't particurally understand painitings (or photography) but that's not to say I don't respect them as an art form. If you want to really blow a person up, try using debate as an example.
Let's continue on this track; instead of saying "this is bullcrap and I adamantly disagee with it" over and over again, let's all try to make an argument supporting our case. That's the intellegent thing to do, right?
Apologies Abound
Note: *sigh* That took me almost an hour to do, ya know...
It's in the club's handbook that you can be an ass within certain perimeters.The_Logician19 post=18.72956.779630 said:
If you don't like the handbook, get it changed. But you can't just ignore it when it doesn't suit you.
At least we know what we're dealing with. If you sat someone from one of the parent groups and said to them "Play a FPS" they'd start rattling off all these facts about the dangers of video games without them actually had played it. That's what annoys me. The PG think they know all about games and immediately assume they know what's best. Like I said, it's easier to blame their kid's stupidity on something that isn't their own ineptitude as a parent.Imitation Saccharin post=18.72956.779604 said:
I gotta say, as someone whose parents actually look at a game before they buy it: It is not hard to limit what your kids play. Unless they're old enough to drive, the parents control what games are bought in their house. If you look at a game like GTA 4 and see the M rating (Which is pretty hard to miss on a game box), you see that it says "Mature" and 18+ below it. It takes 3 seconds to know which games are appropriate and which ones aren't. All you have to do is care about the stuff that your kid plays. I should know. My parents are smart. Last year, I tried to get No More Heroes. Nada. I'm not going to say that the games aren't having a bad effect on kids (the jury's still out on that one, as far as the media is concerned). What I am saying is that it takes 3 seconds of time to know what is bad. The arguement that people don't know what they buy is ridiculous. If you look at a box for a game, one of the first things you see is the big glaring rating in the bottom left or right (I can't remember right now).
It's almost as if you're implying using the term "we" to refer to a group who meet a set criteria to which both parties of the discussion belong is also logically invalid.Radelaide post=18.72956.779685 said:
But you'd never do such a thing, because that would be stupid.
Even if tests prove violent games make little kids aggressive/angry/violent. It still boils to down to what parents LET their kids play. I mean, let's face it, the age group they say it affects the most aren't particularly sneaky or well funded to get games their parents won't get for them.
There are ratings for a reason but most parents I know don't check them, they can't claim they don't know the system because it's plastered all over the game section of every store here in giant text, they just want their whiny little kid to shut up.(I've worked for gaming stores and I see it happen alot).
On a side-note, every CD sold at Wal-Mart is censored to within an inch of it's life, but right next to them are the movies......that are all Un-cut Uncensored and basically softcore porn......irritates me immensly
On another side note, Ultrajoe, do tell
There are ratings for a reason but most parents I know don't check them, they can't claim they don't know the system because it's plastered all over the game section of every store here in giant text, they just want their whiny little kid to shut up.(I've worked for gaming stores and I see it happen alot).
On a side-note, every CD sold at Wal-Mart is censored to within an inch of it's life, but right next to them are the movies......that are all Un-cut Uncensored and basically softcore porn......irritates me immensly
On another side note, Ultrajoe, do tell