Poll: But What If They're Right?

[Space Spoons]

If you follow the news with even passing interest, you must have noticed the high volume of news stories covering murders and suicides while linking the perpetrator's history of gaming to the crime itself. Among most logical gamers, it's generally agreed upon that trying to cast a video game as the cause for a youth's violent crime is foolish, since there's never been any completely conclusive studies done to establish such a link.

Lately, though, I've been thinking... Though the research hasn't been conclusive, there have been studies that allegedly show a link between playing violent video games and an increase in violent behavior/thought. In light of this, I've begun to wonder if we've made a mistake in looking at gaming the same way we look at violent movies and books. For all their similarities, they aren't simply the same, and I think it's time we took steps to show it.

Now, before you jump down my throat, I'm not in favor of censorship or anything drastic like that. I'm referring to a bill [http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/01/12/new-bill-congress-would-add-cigarette-warning-labels-video-games] that's currently passing through Congress that would give games Surgeon General-esque warnings. I'm for it.

What about you, Escapists? What if they're right?

 

[TehCookie]

Its like the warnings on cigarettes just because some people say its bad doesn't mean everyone going to stop, smokers still smoke and gamers will still play video games.

 

[Space Spoons]

Its like the warnings on cigarettes just because some people say its bad doesn't mean everyone going to stop, smokers still smoke and gamers will still play video games.

You're probably right, but this way, if a little kid goes out and shoots up the neighborhood because he saw it on GTAIV, the kid's mother can't try to pin it on Rockstar.

 

[TehCookie]

Its like the warnings on cigarettes just because some people say its bad doesn't mean everyone going to stop, smokers still smoke and gamers will still play video games.

You're probably right, but this way, if a little kid goes out and shoots up the neighborhood because he saw it on GTAIV, the kid's mother can't try to pin it on Rockstar.

Then it goes back to kids shouldn't be playing those games, they have ratings for a reason.

 

[Zetona]

If the warnings are actually informative, and warn parents that playing violent video games may cause violent tendencies in some teenagers, then I'm for them. If they say, "video games may be hazardous for your health", or "playing video games may make you a homicidal maniac", then I'm against them.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Of course all this legislation is ignoring the actual facts, the dirty little secret in the "OMG GAMZ R BAD" clubhouse; violent crime is actually down from pre-gaming years according to arrest records. There's absolutely no justification in the demographic data for stigmatising gaming.

They're not right. They're band-wagoning in order to look like they're "doing something" while avoiding the real tough decisions; scapegoating games (or rap, or cartoons, or comic books, or whatever) is much cheaper than fixing the school system and cleaning up around the city.

Don't let them get away with it.

-- Steve

 

[Space Spoons]

Its like the warnings on cigarettes just because some people say its bad doesn't mean everyone going to stop, smokers still smoke and gamers will still play video games.

You're probably right, but this way, if a little kid goes out and shoots up the neighborhood because he saw it on GTAIV, the kid's mother can't try to pin it on Rockstar.

Then it goes back to kids shouldn't be playing those games, they have ratings for a reason.

Of course not. I'm not arguing that. The way it stands, though, the ratings system is more of a suggestion than a warning. It says "Rated M, you shouldn't play this until you're 17", not "Rated M, children shouldn't play this because it contains violent content that has been linked to violent behavior in the real world."

It's a system that puts developers and gamers both at risk, and it needs to be changed.

 

[sirdanrhodes]

I think, I think, I have no opinion on this because I am gonna keep gaming anyway...

 

[Jonathan Hexley]

As it's been said, they shouldn't play a game if the rating is WAAY too old for them. (For example, a 12 playing a 13 game isn't going to do much damage.)
Also, what music and games share when it comes to cases against them is the makers. Why would the game-makers make a game just to turn a few kids homocidal? It doesn't make sense, just like why Ozzy Osbourne would put the thought and time into 'Suicidal Solution' just so it could make a kid commit suicide.
Thing is, even if they are the cause, that usually just means they're applying what they learn in a game to real life which is about as stupid as trying to understand modern insults.

 

[mokes310]

I'm against it. More pointless legislation trying to fill the role that parents should be responsible for. If you have a 10 year old, do you let him go to R rated movies? There is already a rating system for games, that should be guidance enough, and if it's not, then you are failing as a parent!

 

[Space Spoons]

Of course all this legislation is ignoring the actual facts, the dirty little secret in the "OMG GAMZ R BAD" clubhouse; violent crime is actually down from pre-gaming years. There's absolutely no justification in the demographic data for stigmatising gaming.

They're not right. They're band-wagoning in order to look like they're "doing something" while avoiding the real tough decisions; scapegoating games (or rap, or cartoons, or comic books, or whatever) is much cheaper than fixing the school system and cleaning up around the city.

Don't let them get away with it.

-- Steve

Undoubtedly there's an element of scapegoating involved, but it doesn't pay to look at this like it's any other issue. Like I said, gaming is simply different from rap, metal, cartoons, R-Rated movies and all those things, any way you slice it. To not even consider the idea that they might have a different mental impact is very dangerous.

 

[Zeromaxx]

If the rating labels aren't enough then we need to disband all organizations that make them and move on to this I suppose...I'm still, however, in favor of people just taking responsibility for things instead of blaming video games (and beating people who do blame video games with meter sticks.) I must say though that putting video games on the same level as something filled with deadly and addictive chemicals will probably degrade the industry (or at least the image of the industry.)

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

You can't take away my games, I'll f***ing stab you!

Ahem... I mean I think it's a perfectly good idea, if not for the original reasons. Parents who will see this and act as if it makes a difference are probably too ignorant on the subject to know what's best for their children anyway.

 

[Jandau]

I'm in favor of anything that might help stop parents from buying inappropriate games for their kids. Buying Manhunt 2 for your 6-year old daughter is NOT a good idea.

On the other hand, the labeling itself will probably be misleading, panicky and badly phrased. As a result, bad stuff might get blamed on games even more...

 

[ChaosTheory3133]

Here's the thing, I think the label would be harmless, but I find it unnecessary. Especially since studies are non-conclusive. What the so called research shows is ambiguous indicators of aggression and are often not looking at previous indicators of aggressive behavior (i.e. Environmental Factors). I'd say it would be more conclusive if say a large majority of gamers were emotionally unstable gun men but that isn't necessarily the case. Messed up stuff is going to happen and continue to happen, whether it be the Rock and or Roll, the explosive action movies, or the fictionalized characters in a digital world of make believe.
Sorry to go off on a rant there, I've just got a lot to say about that

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Of course all this legislation is ignoring the actual facts, the dirty little secret in the "OMG GAMZ R BAD" clubhouse; violent crime is actually down from pre-gaming years. There's absolutely no justification in the demographic data for stigmatising gaming.

They're not right. They're band-wagoning in order to look like they're "doing something" while avoiding the real tough decisions; scapegoating games (or rap, or cartoons, or comic books, or whatever) is much cheaper than fixing the school system and cleaning up around the city.

Don't let them get away with it.

-- Steve

Undoubtedly there's an element of scapegoating involved, but it doesn't pay to look at this like it's any other issue. Like I said, gaming is simply different from rap, metal, cartoons, R-Rated movies and all those things, any way you slice it. To not even consider the idea that they might have a different mental impact is very dangerous.

[http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/04/gaming-real-vio.html]

Now tell me that games are dangerous.

-- Steve

edited to fix link: also, graphic from Wired.com

 

[Space Spoons]

Of course all this legislation is ignoring the actual facts, the dirty little secret in the "OMG GAMZ R BAD" clubhouse; violent crime is actually down from pre-gaming years. There's absolutely no justification in the demographic data for stigmatising gaming.

They're not right. They're band-wagoning in order to look like they're "doing something" while avoiding the real tough decisions; scapegoating games (or rap, or cartoons, or comic books, or whatever) is much cheaper than fixing the school system and cleaning up around the city.

Don't let them get away with it.

-- Steve

Undoubtedly there's an element of scapegoating involved, but it doesn't pay to look at this like it's any other issue. Like I said, gaming is simply different from rap, metal, cartoons, R-Rated movies and all those things, any way you slice it. To not even consider the idea that they might have a different mental impact is very dangerous.

Now tell me that games are dangerous.

-- Steve

I'm talking specifically about violent crimes directly related to games and those who play them.

I'm not trying to say that video games are somehow the cause for a non-existent exponential rise in crime. I'm trying to say that any death related to gaming is one too many, and that since traditional thinking isn't getting us anywhere, perhaps we should consider the possibility that they're right.

 

[ForrestDixon]

I think people need to relize the real issue here. Yes video games may make you a generally more violent person. Yes sitting around for eight or nine hours isnt good for you.

The real fact of the matter is that most people are mad that a video game made there son or daughter violent (GTA, Fallout, GOW, Gears of war). Then everyone is upset at the child for the way they acted. I am not saying that its the childs fault for commiting a violent act but I am saying its the parents responsibility to monitor what they let there kids play.

Of course your going to think more violent thoughts if your playing Fallout 3 or GTA4. Your going to think about what you can do to kill the most people. You may tink violent thoughts and you may want to "go on a killing spree" but your probably not going to rob a bank more than any other. When you play Wii bowling are you thinking about killing? Probably not, you might be thinking about how to get a strike or why your grandmah is beating you but not about violence.

In reality it all should boil down to parents monitering what there kids play. I think that there are some 12 year olds that can play GTA because they are mature enough to not go practice what they see on the game they play. But at the same time I think that there are 22 year olds that are not mature enough to play and shouldent be playing games at all based on there current mental state or how much they want to "kill."

If you look at video games and TV yo will relize... If you dont like what you see trun it off and dont watch and play. Video games cant hold a gun to someones head and pull the trigger. In all realality its you that makes the final decision not the game. The game may make you think about

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I'm not trying to say that video games are somehow the cause for a non-existent exponential rise in crime. I'm trying to say that any death related to gaming is one too many, and that since traditional thinking isn't getting us anywhere, perhaps we should consider the possibility that they're right.

And I'm saying that people would be better off trying to eliminate traffic accident deaths (because any death "is one too many") as people are in far greater danger of dying on the roads than they are of dying at the hands of a strung-out Manhunt addict.

-- Steve

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Games already have warnings about content.

Federally mandated warnings from the Surgeon General that they may be hazardous to your health make sense only if someone can actually perform studies demonstrating that this is indeed true. Cigarettes after all piled up millions of bodies before people managed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's bad for you - and even then it took years to get a warning on the packs.

I'm not saying that there is a body quota here - it's just that the argument thus far has been two sides spouting incredibly biased information without any real evidence to back their claims. If you can clinically prove games are hazardous, then fine, put a warning on them. Until then it would be a baseless accusation borrowing on the credibility of the Surgeon General's office to further the career of politicians who use games as nothing more than a political football when there are always more pressing issues to discuss.