Yeah you have to respect the guy for not just walking off the stage once he realised no one was giving his opinion any consideration. I can't say i'd have done the same if i was in his place.Sparrow said:
Games accused of promoting racism and sexism!
- Thread starter reg42
- Start date
Recommended Videos
...those audience members clearly went into that studio with preconceptions and opinions that they wanted backed up.
The gaming guy was completely right though, games DO come with age certificates, the gaming industry does not sell games to those underage...so who's buying them for these kids? The parents, who have absolutely no idea what they're buying.
It's up to the parents to research what they're buying for their children and to respect the age restrictions! Would they let their 13 year old child see Anti-Christ or the Saw movies? No...so why buy games with the same certifications?
And that stupid blonde woman didn't have a CLUE, she was spouting crap that she knew the mindless audience would clap at.
Maybe we're biased because we're gamers, but I don't know anyone who plays games who's gone out and shot anyone. If you have that side to your personality and the potential or willingness to hurt someone, you're going to do it regardless of whether or not you play violent videogames. I've never gone out and smashed a hooker to death with a baseball bat, and I doubt anyone else on this site has. People really need to listen to people who know what they're talking about, instead of looking for someone else to blame.
The gaming guy was completely right though, games DO come with age certificates, the gaming industry does not sell games to those underage...so who's buying them for these kids? The parents, who have absolutely no idea what they're buying.
It's up to the parents to research what they're buying for their children and to respect the age restrictions! Would they let their 13 year old child see Anti-Christ or the Saw movies? No...so why buy games with the same certifications?
And that stupid blonde woman didn't have a CLUE, she was spouting crap that she knew the mindless audience would clap at.
Maybe we're biased because we're gamers, but I don't know anyone who plays games who's gone out and shot anyone. If you have that side to your personality and the potential or willingness to hurt someone, you're going to do it regardless of whether or not you play violent videogames. I've never gone out and smashed a hooker to death with a baseball bat, and I doubt anyone else on this site has. People really need to listen to people who know what they're talking about, instead of looking for someone else to blame.
I'll watch the whole thing and try to point out all of the mistakes. I'll not go into detail on some points if they're covered in the show.
0:10 - "Call of Duty 2: Modern Warfare". It should be Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2.
0:22 - "... recently [the video game industry] has come under fire..." Recently? In 1976, there were calls to ban all video games because the public was so shocked at the violence shown in Death Race. You block could drive onto five lines, causing them to become a block.
0:26 - "Should our children be exposed to violence?" All of the games he's mentioned so far, except Street Fight 4, are illegal to sell to minors in the UK.
1:59 - "Video games are addictive." There's no evidence that playing video games is anymore addictive than reading or watching movies, or exercising. Any enjoyable activity has the potential to be psychologically addictive.
2:12 - "There's a proven link between behavioural violence and video game violence". No, no there is not. Of the hundreds of studies on the subject, some show that violent video games make players more violent, an equal number show that video games make people less violent. Most show no effect on behaviour. One fact that is proven by studies is that video game players are less likely to murder people than those who do not own video game consoles.
2:34 - "More aggressive, less caring." Similar studies have found significantly higher increases in aggression from playing football (American or English).
2:54 - "ooooooooh!" This audience is pretty clearly biased against the one video game expert actually present.
3:50 - "Look at the past 10 years." Video game realism is developing much more slowly, compared to the very fast increases in realism in the 1980's and 1990's. Compare a 2010 game [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ9fTM-bC9Y] to one from 2000 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-3L1_BNnMI&feature=related]. The difference is very major, but not nearly as noticeable when you compare Counterstrike to a game from 1993 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-kg3oy0g6Y], the year that spawned the entire first-person shooter genre.
4:28 - "A tsunami of violence in the home, which is going to corrupt a generation of children". Do you mean like the tsunami of violence after the release of Doom in 1993? Oh, right, 1994 was the year the U.S. violent crime rate suddenly dropped from an all-time high, falling more than 50% by the end of the decade.
6:01 - "How do you defend a shootout in an airport killing innocent civilians?" The No Russian level is justified in the narrative, because it shows the event that leads to all of the fighting in the game. The first Modern Warfare game was criticized for telling the story through cinematics and expository dialogue, rather than letting players experience the events. No Russian let the player experience the full horror of the attack, and make clear the implications it had for world politics. I've heard that it was originally planned to have the player a civilian being attacked, but early in the development process it was determined that players would be too frustrated by their helplessness. As it was, most players were frustrated by the feeling of helplessness in being unable to prevent the attack, so I don't know if putting the player in the shoes of the terrorists was the right move. Personally, I think the mission would be more interesting as a civilian, but that's just my opinion.
Aside: On the show, someone would have cut me off before I got midway through that long description of the logic behind No Russian.
6:16 - "I am categorically against violence for entertainment". Good thing no one was hurt in the making of any of these video games you're discussing. Or are you categorically against the simulated killing of pixels on a screen? If that's the case, you probably can't enjoy any non-Disney movies, either.
6:31 - "As soon as we start down that route, we get into the realm of censorship". Jim is being a bit hypocritical here, saying that he's against further censorship, but evidently tolerates the current level of censorship.
6:58 - "The Hurt Locker is an anti-war film, I don't think that is the case for Call of Duty". Cherry-picking. Many video games are anti-war, such as:
Civilization and its many spin-offs, all of which depict war as a destructive and demoralizing waste.
Fallout and its sequels, which depict the horrifying aftermath of a nuclear war.
Darkest of Days, while not directly anti-war, has a pacifism-provoking depiction of the horrors of warfare.
Battlefield: Bad Company had a rather clever satire of American jingoism. Reading the subtext shows that the game is clearly against the war in Iraq, though I'm guessing that this subtext went right over the heads of many players.
0:10 - "Call of Duty 2: Modern Warfare". It should be Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2.
0:22 - "... recently [the video game industry] has come under fire..." Recently? In 1976, there were calls to ban all video games because the public was so shocked at the violence shown in Death Race. You block could drive onto five lines, causing them to become a block.
0:26 - "Should our children be exposed to violence?" All of the games he's mentioned so far, except Street Fight 4, are illegal to sell to minors in the UK.
1:59 - "Video games are addictive." There's no evidence that playing video games is anymore addictive than reading or watching movies, or exercising. Any enjoyable activity has the potential to be psychologically addictive.
2:12 - "There's a proven link between behavioural violence and video game violence". No, no there is not. Of the hundreds of studies on the subject, some show that violent video games make players more violent, an equal number show that video games make people less violent. Most show no effect on behaviour. One fact that is proven by studies is that video game players are less likely to murder people than those who do not own video game consoles.
2:34 - "More aggressive, less caring." Similar studies have found significantly higher increases in aggression from playing football (American or English).
2:54 - "ooooooooh!" This audience is pretty clearly biased against the one video game expert actually present.
3:50 - "Look at the past 10 years." Video game realism is developing much more slowly, compared to the very fast increases in realism in the 1980's and 1990's. Compare a 2010 game [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ9fTM-bC9Y] to one from 2000 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-3L1_BNnMI&feature=related]. The difference is very major, but not nearly as noticeable when you compare Counterstrike to a game from 1993 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-kg3oy0g6Y], the year that spawned the entire first-person shooter genre.
4:28 - "A tsunami of violence in the home, which is going to corrupt a generation of children". Do you mean like the tsunami of violence after the release of Doom in 1993? Oh, right, 1994 was the year the U.S. violent crime rate suddenly dropped from an all-time high, falling more than 50% by the end of the decade.
6:01 - "How do you defend a shootout in an airport killing innocent civilians?" The No Russian level is justified in the narrative, because it shows the event that leads to all of the fighting in the game. The first Modern Warfare game was criticized for telling the story through cinematics and expository dialogue, rather than letting players experience the events. No Russian let the player experience the full horror of the attack, and make clear the implications it had for world politics. I've heard that it was originally planned to have the player a civilian being attacked, but early in the development process it was determined that players would be too frustrated by their helplessness. As it was, most players were frustrated by the feeling of helplessness in being unable to prevent the attack, so I don't know if putting the player in the shoes of the terrorists was the right move. Personally, I think the mission would be more interesting as a civilian, but that's just my opinion.
Aside: On the show, someone would have cut me off before I got midway through that long description of the logic behind No Russian.
6:16 - "I am categorically against violence for entertainment". Good thing no one was hurt in the making of any of these video games you're discussing. Or are you categorically against the simulated killing of pixels on a screen? If that's the case, you probably can't enjoy any non-Disney movies, either.
6:31 - "As soon as we start down that route, we get into the realm of censorship". Jim is being a bit hypocritical here, saying that he's against further censorship, but evidently tolerates the current level of censorship.
6:58 - "The Hurt Locker is an anti-war film, I don't think that is the case for Call of Duty". Cherry-picking. Many video games are anti-war, such as:
Civilization and its many spin-offs, all of which depict war as a destructive and demoralizing waste.
Fallout and its sequels, which depict the horrifying aftermath of a nuclear war.
Darkest of Days, while not directly anti-war, has a pacifism-provoking depiction of the horrors of warfare.
Battlefield: Bad Company had a rather clever satire of American jingoism. Reading the subtext shows that the game is clearly against the war in Iraq, though I'm guessing that this subtext went right over the heads of many players.
For games to promote those things, they'd have to take a specific stance to actively encourage their use. AFAICR all the games mentioned deliberately discourage such behaviour by making actions of that nature lead to negative gameplay results, rather than the positive results ascribed to them.Darth Sea Bass said:
Violence or conflict is at the heart of ALL entertainment. That is the point of it. It is a diversion for amusement, according to the dictionary, and that diversion is provided by a conflicting object.
Perhaps they could provide us with an entertainment that doesn't pit your wits against something?
They don't want reasons. They want their side of the argument to win. The only reason they say they want answers is because they want to seem open-minded.War Penguin said:
Graah! Rage!
Once again the willingness of humans to ignore every argument they are presented with, shines.
I'd like to throw in another piece of shocking information: There is a statistically verifiable proof that shaving your beard increases your chance of being killed by a faulty elevator. This proves that the razor industry wishes to kill all men and have womankind for itself!
Once again the willingness of humans to ignore every argument they are presented with, shines.
I'd like to throw in another piece of shocking information: There is a statistically verifiable proof that shaving your beard increases your chance of being killed by a faulty elevator. This proves that the razor industry wishes to kill all men and have womankind for itself!
"Call of Duty 2: Modern Warfare"
Here we go again...The host loses all credibility. MW2 is technically Cod6 (not counting all the expansion packs of the earlier games)
"And are such games corrupting the nation's kids?"
Look on the front cover and you will see a letter that gives the rating, telling you what ages the game is reccommened for. If younger people get their hands on an M rated game, the games industry is NOT at fault. Look no further than the parents.
Right, can't continue watching. The level of stupidity is just too much.
Here we go again...The host loses all credibility. MW2 is technically Cod6 (not counting all the expansion packs of the earlier games)
"And are such games corrupting the nation's kids?"
Look on the front cover and you will see a letter that gives the rating, telling you what ages the game is reccommened for. If younger people get their hands on an M rated game, the games industry is NOT at fault. Look no further than the parents.
Right, can't continue watching. The level of stupidity is just too much.
I notice how the guy is being shut out. Anything he says is instantly shot down. One person for video games vs. 3 people AND a whole studio audience against it. Of course it's not fair, both sides believe they are right and are unwilling to change.
Personally i am on the gamers side because he doesn't make a complete idiot out of himself by only looking at one side of the argument.
Personally if i hosted a show and had to bring this debate in, i would force the people against video games to finish the story mode in mass effect, or something teen rated, and play a hour in a adult game. I would also force the gamer to take a small child shopping in a mall for 1 hour. Maybe they will see both sides better then.
Also, i am a pretty calm person, and i have never gotten into a fight with anyone (unless you count martial arts). I have been playing video games of all kinds since i was 11.
Personally i am on the gamers side because he doesn't make a complete idiot out of himself by only looking at one side of the argument.
Personally if i hosted a show and had to bring this debate in, i would force the people against video games to finish the story mode in mass effect, or something teen rated, and play a hour in a adult game. I would also force the gamer to take a small child shopping in a mall for 1 hour. Maybe they will see both sides better then.
Also, i am a pretty calm person, and i have never gotten into a fight with anyone (unless you count martial arts). I have been playing video games of all kinds since i was 11.
I feel bad for the guy defending gaming. It seemed like the program was set up almost entirely to torture him.
I think we're getting away from the main argument, as is easy on forums.jamesworkshop said:
You say that nothing about war games can cause the effect of an actual war. I agree with this and I happily play war games and violent games at the moment, hell, I'm going to pick up God of War 3 tommorow.
However, lots of another people, as well as me, felt discomfort when knifing that soldier whilst looking into his dying eyes. If we feel uneasy now, who knows what that feeling will be like in a few decades when graphics are near photo-realistic, especially with 3-D technology and the like coming to the forefront.
I am not saying it will cause a generation of kids to go all Jack Nicolson in the Shining on us. However I am saying that the discomfort caused by violence in games in the future may very well cause people to stop playing games like CoD and give people like the women in the video real cause for concern.
Just another scapegoat for things.
Plus, when they panned around to see the rest of the panel, I saw... Guy With NeckBeard (probably a tool) Old Woman with Stupid Haircut (out of touch with subject) and Generic Old Guy (out of touch with subject)
and the host himself also gives off that vibe. Its hard for me to listen to people talk about anything that they have little to no experience in, and are instead going off speculation about games or anything that they have not experienced.
Plus, when they panned around to see the rest of the panel, I saw... Guy With NeckBeard (probably a tool) Old Woman with Stupid Haircut (out of touch with subject) and Generic Old Guy (out of touch with subject)
and the host himself also gives off that vibe. Its hard for me to listen to people talk about anything that they have little to no experience in, and are instead going off speculation about games or anything that they have not experienced.
I just find it pathetic. I think that all the blame goes to video games to protect the illusion of child innocence. It's actually kind of sad how they blame the first new thing for the true nature of kids. It was rock n' roll then, and it's video games today.
I too am not selective in my genocide.Alphavillain said:
I wanted to reach through the screen and shut everyone but the (he did after all, have one) neck-beard. Their close-minded, biased 'arguments' and the actions of Alan and the audience only served to further propagate their agenda to make games seem like some youth-corrupting force for Lucifer's great scheme. At least the gamer didn't interrupt them constantly, he even allowed them to interrupt him and took both sides of the argument into account.
There is no sexism, gaming or otherwise. The inequity of our genders in inherent to societal standards that are contradictory and inexplicable. Why ladies first? Why never hit women? Why be the one to ask her out, propose marriage, or never strike her if she strikes you?
Feminism is tantamount to hypocrisy, only it more specifically regards matters of gender rather than maters as a whole. If women are tired of being objectified by chauvinistic men (passively or overtly) then it behooves them to abandon materialism in exchange for affection. Give a girl a jewelry, a night on the town, or some other generic gift, and her reward to you is to please you with sexual favors? Utter hypocrisy.
Even better, those women that wonder how rich single man manage to stay single.
The discussion is moot, considering the standards already in place by westernized society. Funny this topic came up, considering it was on my mind a little while ago.
This commercial always comes to mind when I think about this topic.
As for racism, I am ashamed that people of my race are depicted with bird's nests for hairdo's and Cole Train makes me cringe each and every time he opens his token black mouth, but it's not all bad. Sergeant Major Johnson from Halo and Anderson in Mass Effect were pretty likable if not a bit shallow. There are better examples, I'm sure.
Feminism is tantamount to hypocrisy, only it more specifically regards matters of gender rather than maters as a whole. If women are tired of being objectified by chauvinistic men (passively or overtly) then it behooves them to abandon materialism in exchange for affection. Give a girl a jewelry, a night on the town, or some other generic gift, and her reward to you is to please you with sexual favors? Utter hypocrisy.
Even better, those women that wonder how rich single man manage to stay single.
The discussion is moot, considering the standards already in place by westernized society. Funny this topic came up, considering it was on my mind a little while ago.
This commercial always comes to mind when I think about this topic.
As for racism, I am ashamed that people of my race are depicted with bird's nests for hairdo's and Cole Train makes me cringe each and every time he opens his token black mouth, but it's not all bad. Sergeant Major Johnson from Halo and Anderson in Mass Effect were pretty likable if not a bit shallow. There are better examples, I'm sure.
I was thinking the exact same thing.LunaticFringe said:
People like those in the audience hear about these studies where kids who play violent video games are more violent and they go AHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHH AHH but what isn't said is that the same goes for violent movies and violent literature. There are studies that show that kids exposed to violent literature including many classics from Shakespeare and Homer make kids just as violent as video games do. The interactivity of video games does not increase the violent tendencies, it's just the general exposure to it.
So like the poor guy in the video said, don't give your damn kids Call of Duty 4. Problem solved.
I don't know where the guy was going trying to say that in the future the world is going to collapse because video games are getting more sophisticated. He didn't make any sense.
Edit: Once again I'm surprised to see that something that barely even mentioned sexism has inspired someone to hate on feminism in this forum. What's the deal with people? You can't say that there are chauvinist men right after saying there is no sexism. Of course there is sexism and some women buy into the gender roles and stereotypes and even invite being treated like objects, and that's sad. But if those stereotypes weren't there, then those women wouldn't act like that. It's simple psychology. Girls and boys are raised on certain gender roles in a society that cause them to act in a stereotypical manner, which causes the entire gender to be viewed in a negative light by some, which is sexism. Obviously someone here is sexist, claiming that all women create the situations which make men treat them like objects. So it's all our fault.