Games accused of promoting racism and sexism!

[Casual Shinji]

What. Else. Is. New.

This is the generation gap and it will never be crossed. I hate to sound harsh, but all we have to do is just wait untill people like this die out like the dinosaurs that they are.

 

[GrimTruth]

BOOO!!, Go back to the Garden Titchmarsh !!!

 

[AgentNein]

Then why don't we have problems with those peoples whos job it is to do things like that IRL would you be horrifyed if one of your family joined the military pretty much all of the violent games involve military personel in a combat operation as the context that the violence is a part of

Last night there was a show on the TV called Sport Relief, I'm not sure if you're from the UK and have heard of it or not. This show tries to raise money for lots of good causes through sponsorships for, eg, running a marathon over a month or so then culminates in a massive, about 7 hour, programme where you have lots of comedy sketches, normally with celebrites, interspersed with appeals that show how bad some people in the world have it.

One of these appeals was an interview with two parents whose son joined the army at 17. He shot a person on a combat excercise and, unable to deal with the guilt, hanged himself a while later.

People in the military do suffer from problems with the violence they inflict, just look at what the Vietnam war did to a generation. However they also have psychiatric support and have to go through mental tests before picking up a gun. A young, impressionistic boy picking up CoD 9 on the PS4 doesn't and if graphics continue improving like they have done, he may well inflict violence in an equally realistic setting.

Well said. We as gamers can't just keep our heads in the sand and pretend potential issues won't potentially exist. If we wish for gaming to 'stay free' from unfair censorship, then we need to show (as a gaming community) that we're keeping ourselves aware and educated on the issues.

 

[Henrik Persson]

I'm quite interested in how the study she mentioned handled causality. Showing that kids who play violent videogames are more aggressive proves nothing, the likely causality is that aggressive kids play violent videogames, not the other way around. What a study needs to show is that someone who starts playing violent videogames become more aggressive.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Then why don't we have problems with those peoples whos job it is to do things like that IRL would you be horrifyed if one of your family joined the military pretty much all of the violent games involve military personel in a combat operation as the context that the violence is a part of

It's one thing to condone a military action based on a possible greater good, and another experiencing some of the actions that unfortunately have to take place in the real world from time to time.

Its not just about condoning after all a videogame is complete fiction where nobody is harmed unlike real wars containing real violence fought by real people and yet thoses military personel once retired or simply back at home have despite experience in a proper combat zone haven't turned into insane killers or violent uncontrollable thugs because of their experience so how is a game no matter how photorealistic going to turn ordinary citizens into mindless killers after playing COD 12

You misunderstood my statement. I'm not saying whether or not these games should be condoned. I'm saying there's a fundamental difference between condoning real life violent actions for the sake of a greater good, and interacting with a videogame where these violent actions are simulated (potentially to a greater degree).. We do know that conditions of war can have possibly averse effects on the psyche of those in the military. I'm not saying that videogames can cause this (yes, they're not real. I get that), but what I am saying is that we far from understand the effects of ever-increasingly realistic violence in games.

yes war does cause psycological effects but as a nation their is no mass panic that real soldiers are time bombs of spree killing waiting to happen (which is what the basic videogames are evil argument presupposes), the no russian level that gets mentioned is an example of killing for the greater good so the double agent can gain a greater level of trust with the terrorist group to stop future larger scale acts.
Its true that their is a lot we don't know but the videogames are bad lobby are already convinced that their idea is supported by science right now otherwise all their complaints fall apart its the job of the accuser to validate their complaints because otherwise gaming doesn't actually need defending because the accuastions are already groundless.

 

[ribonuge]

The interview made me more angry than video games have ever done combined. I think this shows how fucking retarded society is, my point being how the audience applauded that ignorant hag and gave no appreciation to the other guys argument. They are just frightened of something they don't understand.

 

[beemoh]

As much as i'd like to hop on the "OMG this ppl dun know whatthey are talking about and are just baised and old and that defending guy did a bad job and sucks for not changing their minds in the first 3 secondsand so on and so forth" train...
I wont, cause of the comments so far are pretty much supporting the "bad peoples" side. Ye sure, let's dismiss em for being clueless, douches, old farts and move on, right?

That is exactly what those people you hate oh so much are doing. Ignoring any kind of argument by default is exactly what anti-(mature)game hardliners do. And it's exactly what most of you do too just on the other side of the fence...

No it isn't, it's entirely different- we've got a good reason to disagree with them, and it's that they very clearly have no knowledge on the subject that they're discussing, and have even more clearly made no attempt to research into it, and this taints everything else they have to say- they're more than welcome to come back later with their good points (And, to be fair nobody here has said there were none at all) when they're able to back it up.

Meanwhile, the reason they disagree with us is because they disagree. We've got facts, we've got evidence, we've got first-hand experience. They've got "NO U". Entirely different.

How brainwashed can an audience get? They were clapping their hand at the slightest thing that those guys said, and when the gamer said his arguments, he didn't get any appreciation at all.

Its not brainwashed audience. You just invite people that fit your point of view as a host/producer of such show, its not random who come sinto the studio. There are either castings like for any other tv appearance or you just call some groups you know will fit.

Tickets for that show are freely handed out to anyone who asks for them, so it's more that people who fit the Titchmarsh POV are more likely to seek them out.

( http://www.beonscreen.com/uk/free-audience-tickets/the-alan-titchmarsh-show---free-tickets-available-2177.asp )

Doesn't mean they're not 'brainwashed', at least by IamQ's definition, just that they're 'brainwashed' by someone other than the production company.

 

[Humiliated Grape]

I'm not sure what point they were trying to make. That just seemed like a general ***** fit directed at anything they didn't like.

I think one of the things that stood out to me was the point about children getting their hands on "mature" video games. Children who want to play those sorts of games are normal children. The games they're talking about are mimicking real life adult situations and all children want to do is be older, they want to participate in situations like that without any consequences.

So yes they will try and get their hands on adult rated movies and games and it is hard to get your hands on them if you don't have ID.

 

[AgentNein]

Then why don't we have problems with those peoples whos job it is to do things like that IRL would you be horrifyed if one of your family joined the military pretty much all of the violent games involve military personel in a combat operation as the context that the violence is a part of

It's one thing to condone a military action based on a possible greater good, and another experiencing some of the actions that unfortunately have to take place in the real world from time to time.

Its not just about condoning after all a videogame is complete fiction where nobody is harmed unlike real wars containing real violence fought by real people and yet thoses military personel once retired or simply back at home have despite experience in a proper combat zone haven't turned into insane killers or violent uncontrollable thugs because of their experience so how is a game no matter how photorealistic going to turn ordinary citizens into mindless killers after playing COD 12

You misunderstood my statement. I'm not saying whether or not these games should be condoned. I'm saying there's a fundamental difference between condoning real life violent actions for the sake of a greater good, and interacting with a videogame where these violent actions are simulated (potentially to a greater degree).. We do know that conditions of war can have possibly averse effects on the psyche of those in the military. I'm not saying that videogames can cause this (yes, they're not real. I get that), but what I am saying is that we far from understand the effects of ever-increasingly realistic violence in games.

yes war does cause psycological effects but as a nation their is no mass panic that real soldiers are time bombs of spree killing waiting to happen (which is what the basic videogames are evil argument presupposes), the no russian level that gets mentioned is an example of killing for the greater good so the double agent can gain a greater level of trust with the terrorist group to stop future larger scale acts.
Its true that their is a lot we don't know but the videogames are bad lobby are already convinced that their idea is supported by science right now otherwise all their complaints fall apart its the job of the accuser to validate their complaints because otherwise gaming doesn't actually need defending because the accuastions are already groundless.

I think we're on the same page with this argument. But the point being brought up (the point you originally responded to) is that we really don't yet understand the full effects of realistically violent videogames on the psyche. Which is a valid concern. You responded by asking why one would take issue with this, and still be okay with the real-life actions of soldiers that are similar. And yada yada yada here we are now?

 

[jamesworkshop]

Then why don't we have problems with those peoples whos job it is to do things like that IRL would you be horrifyed if one of your family joined the military pretty much all of the violent games involve military personel in a combat operation as the context that the violence is a part of

Last night there was a show on the TV called Sport Relief, I'm not sure if you're from the UK and have heard of it or not. This show tries to raise money for lots of good causes through sponsorships for, eg, running a marathon over a month or so then culminates in a massive, about 7 hour, programme where you have lots of comedy sketches, normally with celebrites, interspersed with appeals that show how bad some people in the world have it.

One of these appeals was an interview with two parents whose son joined the army at 17. He shot a person on a combat excercise and, unable to deal with the guilt, hanged himself a while later.

People in the military do suffer from problems with the violence they inflict, just look at what the Vietnam war did to a generation. However they also have psychiatric support and have to go through mental tests before picking up a gun. A young, impressionistic boy picking up CoD 9 on the PS4 doesn't and if graphics continue improving like they have done, he may well inflict violence in an equally realistic setting.

im not saying it cause zero problems, war does cause psycological effects but as a nation their is no mass panic that real soldiers are time bombs of spree killing waiting to happen (which is what the basic videogames are evil argument presupposes)

most people when meeting soldiers will buy them a beer they don't look at them expecting them to go mental at any moment

A young, impressionistic boy picking up CoD 9 on the PS4 is more likly to consider military service considering how much of those gmaes are about the nobility of war fighting the army certainly considers gaming as a recruitment tool I can't see a link between battlefield combat and a school shooting.
Asside from that is the obvious isses that 9 Y/O can't buy those games

 

[MCGT]

im not saying it cause zero problems, war does cause psycological effects but as a nation their is no mass panic that real soldiers are time bombs of spree killing waiting to happen (which is what the basic videogames are evil argument presupposes)

most people when meeting soldiers will buy them a beer they don't look at them expecting them to go mental at any moment

A young, impressionistic boy picking up CoD 9 on the PS4 is more likly to consider military service considering how much of those gmaes are about the nobility of war fighting the army certainly considers gaming as a recruitment tool I can't see a link between battlefield combat and a school shooting.
Asside from that is the obvious isses that 9 Y/O can't buy those games

For your 3rd point, do 16/17 year olds not count as young and impressionistic?

For your 2nd point, which I'm afraid I don't entirely understand, are you trying to say that everyone who buys CoD is likely to join the military? Because if that were true, the recruiters would be jumping up and down in joy. Millions of people buy the CoD series alone and nowhere near the same amount sign up for the army. Out of 60 people, including me, in my 120 strong school year, who have CoD6, I only know 1 who wants to enlist.

And for your first point, real soldiers have been studied to make sure they're mentally strong enough to handle the guilt from killing. A few who can't handle it make it into the army, but generally the public is confident enough that anyone trained to kill by the army is mentally sound.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Then why don't we have problems with those peoples whos job it is to do things like that IRL would you be horrifyed if one of your family joined the military pretty much all of the violent games involve military personel in a combat operation as the context that the violence is a part of

It's one thing to condone a military action based on a possible greater good, and another experiencing some of the actions that unfortunately have to take place in the real world from time to time.

Its not just about condoning after all a videogame is complete fiction where nobody is harmed unlike real wars containing real violence fought by real people and yet thoses military personel once retired or simply back at home have despite experience in a proper combat zone haven't turned into insane killers or violent uncontrollable thugs because of their experience so how is a game no matter how photorealistic going to turn ordinary citizens into mindless killers after playing COD 12

You misunderstood my statement. I'm not saying whether or not these games should be condoned. I'm saying there's a fundamental difference between condoning real life violent actions for the sake of a greater good, and interacting with a videogame where these violent actions are simulated (potentially to a greater degree).. We do know that conditions of war can have possibly averse effects on the psyche of those in the military. I'm not saying that videogames can cause this (yes, they're not real. I get that), but what I am saying is that we far from understand the effects of ever-increasingly realistic violence in games.

yes war does cause psycological effects but as a nation their is no mass panic that real soldiers are time bombs of spree killing waiting to happen (which is what the basic videogames are evil argument presupposes), the no russian level that gets mentioned is an example of killing for the greater good so the double agent can gain a greater level of trust with the terrorist group to stop future larger scale acts.
Its true that their is a lot we don't know but the videogames are bad lobby are already convinced that their idea is supported by science right now otherwise all their complaints fall apart its the job of the accuser to validate their complaints because otherwise gaming doesn't actually need defending because the accuastions are already groundless.

I think we're on the same page with this argument. But the point being brought up (the point you originally responded to) is that we really don't yet understand the full effects of realistically violent videogames on the psyche. Which is a valid concern. You responded by asking why one would take issue with this, and still be okay with the real-life actions of soldiers that are similar. And yada yada yada here we are now?

I wouldn't say we were arguing as such but for me we have an institution that is highly respected and been around for millenia that professionaly trains people to ignore that natural aversion to taking another humans life and then paying them to travel to places and engage in the violent action nessecary to win a war.

And yet despite this we don't really have any examples of this causing a society problems of civil disorder or chaos so to say that simulated war games where nobody dies is going to break mental barriers in the players and turn the nation into some kind of dystopia of crime population by people unable to do anything but be violent is a valid concern.

15 million people played No russian but as of yet we haven't had millions of airport shooting incidents sure thats not a long time frame but i don't think their is any real worry of that happening in the future.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The interview made me more angry than video games have ever done combined. I think this shows how fucking retarded society is, my point being how the audience applauded that ignorant hag and gave no appreciation to the other guys argument. They are just frightened of something they don't understand.

It's history repeating.

Strange that these people can't see the patern throughout the history of popular media. First it was comic books, then 80's action movies were the bad guy and now videogames are seen as the root of the troubled youth.

Stuff like this reminds me why us gamers should not fight amongst ourselves for the sake of fanboyism. No, we must stand together to fight off this horde narrow minded pricks.

Now, all of you. Raise your controller up to the sky and cry, FREEDOM!

 

[Pyotr Romanov]

That woman (I'm not going through the trouble of remembering her name) is so damn annoying, I think she's the one promoting hatred, violence and sexism.

Well, at least for me she does.

 

[cheywoodward]

The guy made a very good argument for games and the show let him speak more than Fox: http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/fox-news-on-mass-effect-sex/163925

 

[jamesworkshop]

im not saying it cause zero problems, war does cause psycological effects but as a nation their is no mass panic that real soldiers are time bombs of spree killing waiting to happen (which is what the basic videogames are evil argument presupposes)

most people when meeting soldiers will buy them a beer they don't look at them expecting them to go mental at any moment

A young, impressionistic boy picking up CoD 9 on the PS4 is more likly to consider military service considering how much of those gmaes are about the nobility of war fighting the army certainly considers gaming as a recruitment tool I can't see a link between battlefield combat and a school shooting.
Asside from that is the obvious isses that 9 Y/O can't buy those games

For your 3rd point, do 16/17 year olds not count as young and impressionistic?

For your 2nd point, which I'm afraid I don't entirely understand, are you trying to say that everyone who buys CoD is likely to join the military? Because if that were true, the recruiters would be jumping up and down in joy. Millions of people buy the CoD series alone and nowhere near the same amount sign up for the army. Out of 60 people, including me, in my 120 strong school year, who have CoD6, I only know 1 who wants to enlist.

And for your first point, real soldiers have been studied to make sure they're mentally strong enough to handle the guilt from killing. A few who can't handle it make it into the army, but generally the public is confident enough that anyone trained to kill by the army is mentally sound.

Anyone at any age can be impressionistic but the point is that these violent games are almost always contained in a war enviroment and since these soldiers are not engaging in civilain murder why would it if it did inspire violence now become random acts of slaughter against civilians

No not everyone will join but you can't ignore the fact that those games are very pro military and yet if it doesn't inspire the players that going of to war is of interest why would it now inspire them to commit mayhem like the anti-videogame lobby suggests.

Nothing about war games can cause the effect of an actual war and yet humans can be subjected to the full horrors of war and still in the majority of cases still handle the experience.
the simulated experience is never going to reach that level of intesity no matter how photoreal it looks beside if someone did have such a poor state of mental health then the game really can't take any of the blame

 

[ramox]

No it isn't, it's entirely different- we've got a good reason to disagree with them, and it's that they very clearly have no knowledge on the subject that they're discussing, and have even more clearly made no attempt to research into it, and this taints everything else they have to say- they're more than welcome to come back later with their good points (And, to be fair nobody here has said there were none at all) when they're able to back it up.

Meanwhile, the reason they disagree with us is because they disagree. We've got facts, we've got evidence, we've got first-hand experience. They've got "NO U". Entirely different.

So tell me, what are "our" so called facts?
The only point those people in this particular discussion seem to not grasp (or more likely, are not willing to grasp) is that the kind of games they are talking about are and never were meant for children. And even that assumption is argueable. No one can convince me that Bobby (Mr. Activision) didn't put all those 12 year old boys fapping over pwning other over the internet into his profit calculations well before release.
But back to topic.
What do we know for a fact that makes ua oh so much wiser? That violent games do not make people violent persons? That's as much an assumption as theirs, based on our person expirience and our friend's but, harldy a fact.

Seriously, those people (as much as i disagree with most of what they say) just have an opinion about something. Which is very much legit. Everyone is entitled to his opinion no matter how well informed he is about the subject. No, knowing more about a subject does not make you opinion weight more than someone else' and does not make theirs invalid.
That's exactly the state of mind we are loathing about so much when thrown at us from the other side.

A: "You don't know shit about it so i will ignore you"
B: "You are baised because you love that stuff (or even make a living on it in the case of developers/publishers/jornalits) so what you say is futile"

A neverending story...

 

[razer17]

The guy defending video games failed, and then there was the life needing *****, spewing hate, and claiming stuff she couldn't prove.

And was what up with the crowd?!

The crowd is middle aged to elderly women. Clearly these are exactly the people who are going to hate video games. And the guy didn't fail in the sense that his arguments were good, he failed in the sense that this audience was against him from the start, so it didn't make a difference what he said.

OT: All the points in this video are stupid, apart from the gamer. I mean, when that other bloke is on about, what levels of violence will there be in another 15 years? Well, the same as now. The graphics might be slightly updated, but nothing compared to the difference between 10 years ago and now. Just look at games like Cold Winter, which had body dismemberment and all that sort of stuff, or manhunt. Levels of violence haven't really changed, it's just the graphics.