I don't get the whole "Modern warfare (and related games) will turn your kids into terrorists thing

[Wedgetail122]

I think the article on the main page sums it up, people need closure, something to blame for a random masacre that was unavoidable, and video games with their excessive violence and addiction are the easiest targets and are always the first to be blamed in these situations. The statment isn't true in the first place, as all these people who have commited these massacres have some sort of deeper mental condition often cuased by the social climates and bullying/parental issues, games are an easy scapegoat for which governments an groups can pin something on without having to go deeper and anylise the problem. its sad really, and it makes it a helluva a lot harder for me to convince my parents that, just becuase I have a combination of both games and military cadets, im not gonna go pshyco....

 

[BoTTeNBReKeR]

"It is human nature to seek culpability in a time of tragedy"

 

[Zeema]

because no one wants to say

'Hey im a bad parent and i should of payed more attention to my son's actions.'

most people would rather say

'Hey [insert popular thing music,game or movie] is the reason my son did this or that!!!.

 

[Pat8u]

this whole violent video game thing isn't very prominent in press down here in aus(Yes...Really) every kid and his dog buys the cod games every year and there have been reports of kids parents letting have the week of for oblivion when it came out

 

[Unia]

That said, games could be just about anything with same base mechanics, so why not take a break from the 'soldier vs. terrorist' with 'chipmunk vs. weasel' or something. Games are about playing - doing things for their own sake, having fun - so I say blame the bad rep on 'hardcore' crowd crying out for realism.

And how would having a weasel getting shot to ribbons be any better? If anything, the nutjob animal rights wackos would start kicking up such a fuss that all games would get a terrible reputation.

Games are simply there to be enjoyed. They aren't there to teach life lessons. If one's getting one's life lessons from video games then one has far greater issues than video games.

Eh, I wasn't being entirely serious with that last statement. Hard to convey irony over text alone. Forgot about PETA-level nutjobs...how about fleas vs ticks? Pretty sure I've never seen anyone defend either X)

Bottom line: I'm personally irked about claiming "realism" in wargames where getting shot means a few second delay before respawning and everybody runs backwards while firing heavy assault rifles. Which is beside the point of this thread so nevermind.

 

[BGH122]

Eh, I wasn't being entirely serious with that last statement. Hard to convey irony over text alone. Forgot about PETA-level nutjobs...how about fleas vs ticks? Pretty sure I've never seen anyone defend either X)

Bottom line: I'm personally irked about claiming "realism" in wargames where getting shot means a few second delay before respawning and everybody runs backwards while firing heavy assault rifles. Which is beside the point of this thread so nevermind.

Ah, my fault; I thought you meant the statement seriously and reacted as such.

I do agree that 'realism' in games is pretty pathetic. I always feel slightly irked whenever I see a shooting game touting a 'realistic' difficulty setting where the player can still take three or four bullets before going down (after which they immediately respawn, if they haven't already shrugged off those few mere bullet-wounds barely slowing them down). Even simulators like ARMA permit a couple of shots to 'non-vital' locations like the torso (how did that concept originate? That the centre of almost all the body's organs is able to take a good few bullets?).

But there should be a place for 'just for fun' FPS games which don't take matters too seriously and just allow for mayhem. The problem is really only when an FPS is posing as realistic, yet permitting lethal levels of damage.