Violent games - are we being hypocrites after all?

[karmapolizei]

Here's the thing. I've been a gamer almost for the better part of my life now, and most of the games I've played have been gory and violent. And hell yeah, I like it. I don't really think it has made me more violent person, and there's even been enough situations where that has proven until now (or these situations have just proven that I have enough common sense to know that I probably suck at fighting, I don't know). But then again... you see, I'm a German, and thus you can imagine that I've had more than my share of the "Should violent video games be banned" debate in the past week. It's certainly not been my first, and I've been through the sickeningly stupid arguments of the anti-gaming crowd so often now that I wanted to drill a nail into my head before they had even got started.

But something curious happened while I witnessed the discussion, the endless tos-and-fros of arguments and counter-arguments:

I really felt ashamed of the positions many gamers took in the debate.

That took me by surprise. How, being a gamer myself, could I ever NOT sympathize with these brave people holding up to the tiresomely inane perceptions, reality-bending "descriptions" and oversimplicistic explanations that kept being thrown at them by people who have probably never played anything besides Solitaire? The anti-gaming front is wrong on so many levels, how could my fellow gamers not be... right?

It's because I think they're not. They're not as wrong as the anti-gaming front, but being less wrong than their counterpart has never made anyone right, ever.

It's the ever same defenses that make me sick. It's how they're claiming that Counter-Strike, or CoD, or what-have-you, is nothing more than hide-and-seek and that the scenario doesn't matter, hell, you don't even recognize it after some time. I wonder, then, why don't we just play hide and seek? If it's nothing more than that - why don't we settle for some ASCII graphics of strawmen? Why all the guns, the military scenarios? Why the somewhat-realistic killing? What's that for, if we really don't care that much?

And while we're at it - how can we seriously claim games have no effect on us if we're so intense on immersion? Almost every single critical discussion of a given game centers around this, and it's what we play the games we love for. It's the intensity of the experience we're after - and one is left to wonder: if it isn't intense experiences that stick with us, what is?

You see, I really don't want to blend in with the choir of those who want to ban FPSses or completely ban them for minors or whatever. But I do think it's time we take ourselves - and our chosen diversion - seriously and admit: Yep, it's bloody and intense, and the stuff we do in these games is, for a large part, at least morally questionable.

I think we should start asking ourselves some questions, like: What the hell is it that fascinates us so much about killing that we dedicate a large amount of time to doing it virtually? I guess there's something true to the idea that humans just have a potential for violence that needs an outlet, but I think there's more to that. Consider, for instance, that we actually can consider ourselves quite lucky NOT having to kill someone in real life, and I think all of us do. Nevertheless, we're more than happy to do it in games. WTF?
Why is it that we have so much fun doing it? I mean, I want to know what that creepy thing in me is that wants to do that, and hell, "archaic impulses" just aren't a satisfying explanation.

And what does it do to us? How do we react to it? In what ways might it, despite the endless claims to the contrary, alter our personalities?

What do you think?

 

[johnthenerd]

I'd say that we play Call of Duty instead of Hide and Seek because the violence rachets up the tension, gets our adrenaline pumping, and delivers a bigger payoff.

Consider this:

Romatic comedies aren't about sex. At least, not in the way that porn is. They're supposed to be a fantasy about how some everygirl is with the some rich jerk, and then she eventually realizes her mistake and hooks up with her life-long friend, Colin Farrell. Sex is still a factor though. A romantic comedy that was all about a couple grade school kids sharing a first kiss would be considered silly. Violent video games are similar. They deliver a bigger payoff because the stakes are higher. The blood and guts aren't "necessary" in the game design sense, but they give the player a sense of realism that gets your guts into it.

So to answer, yes, we're a bunch of cavemen who like violence. That's not a bad thing. I'd rather be a caveman than a whiny pacifist.

 

[karmapolizei]

So to answer, yes, we're a bunch of cavemen who like violence. That's not a bad thing. I'd rather be a caveman than a whiny pacifist.

Well, I don't know if that's not a bad thing after all. Then again, I consider myself a whiny pacifist. And I like CoD and the like

Seriously though, my point is: Why are there so many people labelling themselves as "whiny pacifists" (or words to that matter) still playing, say, CoD? (Like, you know, myself)

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It takes a lot of military training to get most people to the point where they are willing to kill another human. I'm not sure how it is for cavemen.

 

[SmilingKitsune]

So to answer, yes, we're a bunch of cavemen who like violence. That's not a bad thing. I'd rather be a caveman than a whiny pacifist.

Well, I don't know if that's not a bad thing after all. Then again, I consider myself a whiny pacifist. And I like CoD and the like

Seriously though, my point is: Why are there so many people labelling themselves as "whiny pacifists" (or words to that matter) still playing, say, CoD? (Like, you know, myself)

It really is a bit of a paradox, I am for the most part a pacifist yet I love Gears of War, I think it's just down to the appeal of putting yourself in a completely different pair of shoes, I don't think I'd actually like to take a chain-saw to a locust in real life but in the context of the game it's great.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

Ehh we all know games are violent it's just we dont give a shit. I have always had the belief that you release killing energy on the game (although they can be VERY frustrating sometimes).

And guess what fascinates us about killing. That on a caveman level. It is natural. We kill to survive and we did so for so long i'm sure its in the genes behind our instinct somewhere. Now in modern society we dont get to kill anything and I'm pretty sure that some primeval part of our brains misses it or finds it wrong that we are being pacifist goats and so it compels us to fulfill this need in the least harmful way possible, Gaming

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Why don't we play more games where we hunt deer with pointy sticks instead of shooting men with guns if it's about being a caveman?

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

Violent media makes people more prone to violence, there have been numerous experiments that prove this as well as observational studies that support it. The thing that bothers me is that video games take the full brunt of public opinion despite videogame violence being less extreme than films or anime. 300 is more graphic than any game I've ever played, Braveheart and Gladiator as well; not that there's anything wrong with that, but why aren't the "protect our children" nutjobs speaking out there? Why is it that people are taken seriously when they denounce Rockstar after ignoring the MA rating that's on the box and buying it for their seven year old, but dismissed if they do the same thing with an R rated movie?

Parental responsibility needs to be emphasized instead of coming up with new ways to persecute game makers.

 

[whyarecarrots]

Add in another cowardly pacifist here who enjoys FPSes

I think the issue does come down to the fact of the adrenaline rush: these games are exciting, and having death as the penalty for failure ramps up the tension and excitement still further. Now, to say that, for the majority of us forum-goers at least, this is the same emotion that would cause someone to kill another person, would be incorrect in my opinion: we realise that these games are not real, and that real killing has consequences, both legally for the killer, but also emotionally, for all parties: I see nothing morally reprehensible in blowing the polygonal representation of a cartoon American newspaper boy into tiny bits with a rocket launcher, but the mere idea of even hurting a real person, with a family, friends, and a full life of their own, is one that is utterly abhorent to me.

The problem comes, however, when games are played by those who have issues with morality before even beginning to play video games: for them, this train of thought may not apply, and hence the definition between games and reality becomes more hazy, and killing becomes something natural.

In short, no, I don't think we are being at all hypocritical, simply because a violent video game and a real-life killing are so far removed from each other, that we, as normal(ish) balanced individuals, just can#t reconcile the idea of the two being linked.


I think that was possibly the first reasonably intelligent post I've made on this forum: I knew it had to happen at some point....

 

[Hyperactiveman]

Parental responsibility needs to be emphasized instead of coming up with new ways to persecute game makers.

That is so true. I'm sick of people telling game developers what they can't put in their games. Also games shouldn't be banned because of their content, the responsibility should be with the parents. If they wait until the game is played by their kids instead of looking at it themselves then their the ones to blame, and if the parents aren't there at all it's still their fault.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I think the issue does come down to the fact of the adrenaline rush: these games are exciting, and having death as the penalty for failure ramps up the tension and excitement still further.

If I'm playing Counter Strike offline with bots then I can safely say that there isn't much adrenaline at all. It can be fun but who cares, right? I'd only care if I was competing against other real people. I'm still shooting at the same human targets but the experience is different, more different than if I was shooting at robot targets.

 

[whyarecarrots]

I think the issue does come down to the fact of the adrenaline rush: these games are exciting, and having death as the penalty for failure ramps up the tension and excitement still further.

If I'm playing Counter Strike offline with bots then I can safely say that there isn't much adrenaline at all. It can be fun but who cares, right? I'd only care if I was competing against other real people. I'm still shooting at the same human targets but the experience is different, more different than if I was shooting at robot targets.

...would this be a bad time to admit that I struggle with bots... on normal... with SMGs *shame*

I suppose there's also the argument that violence is naturally cathartic*, and the ability to release these violent tendencies in a safe, virtual environment where no-one will get hurt can only be a good thing

*I once blasted my way through a level of l4d on normal with a shotgun when I was in a bad mood, and it did make me feel considerably less stressed.

 

[Abolyss]

for me, i would think that it is because im someone who hates confrontation in real life, that i release all those moments into a video game! i agree that the immersion of the game raises your adrenaline, and this is something the human body is somewhat addicted to. Take people who jump out of airplanes on a common basis, they always say they do it for the rush, im sure gladiators back in the Colosseum who were champions felt nothing for killing those people as they were doing it for the rush of it. In modern day society we cant enter a colosseum but we can kill others in a video game which raises our adrenaline!

From the stand point of what it is doing to us mentally, i think certain gamers (like me) who play games with an excess of violence become alot more desensitised to death.
I have seen so much death since january(funerals, news broadcasts of dead bodies)
and yet i felt no remorse for any of them! I don't know if this is a good thing for people, but in my opinion i think its good.


Then theres the common argument of
"when there is an alien/zombie invasion and everyone is dying who do you want to save you, someone who raised animals and made virtual families, or someone who spent their life killing the invaders"

 

[Susano]

I think the issue does come down to the fact of the adrenaline rush: these games are exciting, and having death as the penalty for failure ramps up the tension and excitement still further.

If I'm playing Counter Strike offline with bots then I can safely say that there isn't much adrenaline at all. It can be fun but who cares, right? I'd only care if I was competing against other real people. I'm still shooting at the same human targets but the experience is different, more different than if I was shooting at robot targets.

Thats because robots in cs:s arn't very good, and even if they are the can't learn, for example if you used a certain path the whole game they wouldn't learn that you would go that way, also robots have no emotion in response to the competition which is what we need.

 

[blaze96]

Well I think as a species we see a distinct difference between flesh and blood and a grouping of polygons and/or pixels. This gives a sense of detachment even with a high immersion factor. To put it another way it is like a play. We believe what is happening on stage, even though we know no person dies when a gun is fired on stage we suspend our disbelief and believe they have died. I don't think it is hypocritical to enjoy violence as entertainment while abhorring it in real life. As for the pacifist who enjoys a violent video game, I don't think you only like any games JUST for the violence, there are plenty of gore-fests that fail because they don't have a decent story or any challenge whatsoever. Just because as a group we enjoy violent entertainment does not make us hypocritical in not enjoy seeing real people die. In fact I believe it is healthy to enjoy simulated violence where no person is harmed, while not wishing harm onto real people.

 

[GyroCaptain]

Reminds me of that old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon: "Nah, I'd like to shoot the idiots who think this stuff affects me."

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Thats because robots in cs:s arn't very good, and even if they are the can't learn, for example if you used a certain path the whole game they wouldn't learn that you would go that way, also robots have no emotion in response to the competition which is what we need.

I'm not very good either but I do know what you mean. Maybe it's just me but I don't get much of an effect from adrenaline unless I'm playing with real people who I feel like I have something to prove to.

 

[oktalist]

Why do we enjoy going to see Die Hard 12, Bad Boys 5 or Gritty War Movie at the cinema? Yeah, it's basically adrenaline, and the boyhood fascination with guns and tanks and bombs that persists when we've ostensibly "grown up." Not that there aren't any girls who like violent films and games, just that testosterone is the driving force behind their popularity.

I don't think the causal factors of violence in the media hold any relevance in the censorship debate, but rather the effects do. In any case, I think it boils down to whether or not censorship is practical, effective or even a good idea.

From the stand point of what it is doing to us mentally, i think certain gamers (like me) who play games with an excess of violence become alot more desensitised to death.
I have seen so much death since january(funerals, news broadcasts of dead bodies)
and yet i felt no remorse for any of them! I don't know if this is a good thing for people, but in my opinion i think its good.

Becoming desensitised to the death and suffering of others is most decidedly not good.

 

[hairymammoth]

I think critics are most affected by the fact that it's still you doing the killing. In a film, it is someone else, an actor, who is doing the killing. However, in games, it is us who kills, and the idea of mixing a game with killing could possibly leave an after-taste in our mind which could taint our views on killing people.

I myself still enjoy gun games, despite being a Christian.