So then, violent video games aren't all that bad are they? You seem to be making a circular argument....with yourself.

If playing these video games distressed people, as you claim(without anything to back it up..again), then these games would not be selling. I get a sense of exhilaration on par with good fighting evil when I play a game. No distress here. No negative energy. And I don't beat my wife and kids when I'm done.

The "games" are bad since they distress people. I never said they weren't bad. It's just that people have to calm down after they've been distressed. Some players don't know how to calm down after they've played a violent "game". Read Grossman's book about the kid who shot someone after he played a first person shooter "game". But Manhunt and Ethnic Cleansing are not "good fighting evil games". They're just evil "games", period.

I would like to disagree. I just got Manhunt and it's quite enjoyable. I guess this is the part where you tell me how brainwashed and addicted I am? Am I a danger to society?

A quick question: since when is this Grossman a deity? You are talking like he is THE expert on everything. I can provide you with hundreds of sources that refute him. Instead of telling people to read his book, maybe you should provide some info? I haven't been on AD all that long, but from what I see, people provide info here to back up their own arguments. Instead, you expect people to research YOUR point of view for you. And based on what you say of this "genius", I feel like I can do a better job expanding my horizons if I read the back of my deodorant bottle, rather than his book.

You know what causes distress? Life. Period. That's why people snap and kill each other. Because of things in real life, not on a screen.

You contradict yourself something awful all through your arguments. On one hand you say that people start get desensitized and start enjoying violence. On the other hand you say it distresses them. Let's take a quick vote, how many people enjoy being distressed? Anyone?

Do violent video games cause stress? Yes, they do. So do nonviolent ones. So does watching a sports event, or getting really excited about finally getting that thing you always wanted. You fail to realize the difference between DISTRESS and EUSTRESS (not sure of spelling). Distress is what you experience when you come home and find Fluffy dead. Eustress is what you experience when your favorite team scores the winning point in double OT. One is bad for you, the other is not. Neither has anything to do with this.

If I choose to cover every wall in my house with pictures of decapitated bodies, there is not a single thing anyone can do about it. And that's what makes our country great. And speaking of what causes violence, the right to free speech is something many of us will defend to the death.

I asked you this before, and you ignored me: Show me conclusive proof that violent games make violent people. Several people here (myself included) proved that they don't, since we are yet to kill anyone. Even after playing Manhunt.

I'd say you're pretty close to becoming a danger to society if you consider killing people to be fun.
Grossman's book has all the proof you need. Violent games distress and desensitize people.



There's evidence right there you're a danger not only to others but to yourself. To think you'd be willing to sacrifice your own life just because you believe that "Manhunt" should be protected free speech is just ridiculous. In effect you are addicted and brainwashed. When initially read your message, I was willing to believe you weren't yet addicted and brainwashed, that you could still think on your own and not be enslaved by violent game muck. Evidently I was mistaken.
Better check the laws in your city. There have been cities that have laws that prohibit such pictures. One city passed such a law after a woman killed students at a school. And I don't fail to understand the difference between distress and eustress.

FlutePlayer,



Ummm, I'm talking about a video game, I'm not killing real people, I'm killing a bunch of code. The Matrix has you, Neo.



Did you miss the part where I asked you to provide some info instead of telling people to read Grossman's book over and over? Or the part where I said I'd rather read the back of my deodorant? If you want to provide the info go ahead. But I'm not about to waste my time doing your research for you.



Wow, it takes psychologists that have PhDs HOURS and multiple test to figure that out about someone. You managed to figure it out just by the fact that I enjoy Manhunt? Impressive.



Being of Jewish descent, I am pretty sure that the KKK, as well as any Neo-Nazi group would want me dead. Including the ones that put out Ethnic Cleansing. And I would also die defending their right to put forth their propaganda, have organized rallies, and yes, put out a game like Ethnic Cleansing. Does that mean I am also brainwashed by racist propaganda? Maybe I'm just brainwashed by the First Amendment?



First of all, I was using that as an example. I don't actually have those pictures hanging up. Second of all, anyone can get them off of rotten.com Third, do you want to back up what you said with a SINGLE source? Myself and others have been asking you time and time again.

Maybe someday you will be willing to address ALL of my points, which you obviously didn't. All you did was say that in your "expert opinion" I am a danger to society. Not to be rude, but I honestly have more constructive debates with my 1 week old son.

Here's a link to research. BattleTech and Wing Commander are war "games" that are designed to desensitize people. In BattleTech, players are desensitized to hate other humans. In Wing Commander, players are desensitized to hate Kilrathi (cat like aliens), Black Lance (genetically enhanced people), pirates, etc. You'll notice these "games" don't encourage the player to treat the opposing people with kindness. No, the player is supposed to destroy them. Violent video games are a form of photonic poison - they desensitize players. Thus they deserve to be taxed or banned. Only when the makers of these "games" state that they don't want the players of them to be violent in any way will I ever believe that they don't want players to be violent at all.
Link

I'm glad to see you've found at least one other source for your claims besides Mr. Grossman. But your link provides exactly one mention to one video game in the entire article. Hardly anything to sway an opinion here in the Violent video games thread.

I am sooo glad someone with your views is not able to dictate what I can see or play or read. On the plus side, I can say that you are definitely committed to your cause....I just wish you could see anybody else's side of the argument.

I have seen others opinions. I've dismissed them as rubbish. Violent game makers desensitize players. They brag how they're "violent people". They talk about how they kill animals. A good way to lessen the impact of violent media on people is to have each violent game product come with a note attached stating that the designer of it does not want the player to be violent in any way whatsoever.

Dismissing the opinions of others who disagree with you as "rubbish" Flute Player is not only rude, it virtually ensures your opinion will be treated exactly the same way.

You think violent video games densensitize players. Okay. That's YOUR opinion. It seems to be the minority viewpoint here, but you're welcome to it. However, repeating the same one-note, tired argument over and over ad infintum isn't just rude, it's boring.

Trying to tell people they shouldn't play certain video games because it offends you is like telling people they shouldn't watch pornography or boxing or trashy tv shows because it offends you. Why spend so much of your time worried about what others do for entertainment?

This weekend the daily newspaper published a special six-page section about the city's 116 murder victims in 2003. Not one of them were killed by someone who had been desensitized by a violent video game---unless someone got frustrated and beat the other person to death with a PlayStation 2.

That's a bit contradictory ... Your saying its perfectly alright to have severe violence in video games as long as the makers of those games state it is not there intent for the players of their game to become violent. So the violence is still there but as long as nobody intends to make kids violent that's OK.

And you source, FlutePlayer:

It is another persons opinion, they have found no provable link and violence in the media and video games is just one possibility for rising violence amongst youngsters. The violence may not help and it may well be contributory to a growing problem but it is not the mass hysterial brainwashing phenomenon you see it as.

I've played "wing commander", and I quite enjoyed it. (I have completed it probably three times now but it didn't make me want to hate cats (I hate cats because I'm allergic to them and they get fur all over the place). And actually your supposed to ali with the cats (Kilrathi). Only one guy in the game hates the cats because they killed his dad in the war which ended a long while ago and you either help him kill them and fail or move on to the next jump and he gets mad at you but you did the right thing. I the game you have to fight these, insect like, green aliens that are part of the Kilrathi prophecy of the "END". So the whole game is about fighting for your very survival ... Is that a bad cause, there are a surprising amount of morals in the game now I come to think about it!

What your against is mindless violence, not violence in itself. My next door neighbors cat has on occasions left a half chewed pigeon lying around in my garden, that is violence to survive, which could be considered needful. But if the cat kills the bird and leaves it untouched then it is done just for the sake of killing and for no need whatsoever. So if a game requires you to throw bombs at evil bad guys to protect your village from being levelled to the ground is that needful in the reality of the game enviroment ... yes, unless you want the resultant destruction to happen. And would you really rather us all go back to hitting each other with real sticks or pelting each other with pellets than doing no actual harm on the screen and changing a few binary characters.

From the full Article:

I'm surprised with a case like that, no-one has made an attack on the media that has worked. If there case was that strong you'd expect something to have been done about it. Maybe its the other way round, violent people play violent games more than non-violent people and are violent not because of the game but because of their innate violence ... I think this is more probable than violence in video games turning people into suicidal homicidal assaulters like the article seems to think!

No, I'm not saying it's perfectly alright to have violence in games as long as makers of those "games" tell players to not be violent. I'm just saying it would be better if makers had such a note.



You'll notice that the makers of these games want you to kill off the opposing aliens instead of pacifying them. They want you to become desensitized. Sure in Wing Commander IV, you get to use Leech gun and leech missiles but not that often - the makers don't encourage you to. The makers don't encourage players to use more pacifying equipment to win their games because they want players to become desensitized. I remember a magazine article that said "In Wing Commander, you hated the Kilrathi". Furtermore, the makers of these games (Wing Commander and BattleTech) stifle crticism of them. You'll see how at their websites they don't tolerate someone questioning how their games are played. No, players are supposed to play the game according to how the makers want them played, not how the players want them played, usually in a violent manner. I firmly believe the customer is always correct. Game makers don't care about customers' interests. Game makers' idea is basically "either like what we sell or go away". Eventually enough people who're tired of violence are going to go away and the makers of these violent games are going to go out of business and good riddens.
What the violent game makers want players to do is to become desensitized to violence so they don't care about themselves - thus they become violence addicts. Then the players want more and more violence. You see, if the violent game makers made their games less violent and emphasized, even just a little bit about caring, players would start to care about themselves and more and more to the point where they would not want to purchase violent games anymore because they would be wasting their money. So what the violent game makers do is make their games violent so they desensitize players and get them depressed to the point where players feel like they have to purchase a more violent game to "feel better" (the players wasted their time & money playing previously less violent games and they eventually fail in life due to the time & money they've wasted so they purchase more and more violent games until they become violence junkie addicts). This is what violent game makers count on - desensitization and depression - they dislike public education because public education gives them the truth about how to make their lives better.
There are things we can do to prevent violent game makers from corrupting the youth of the world: We can have organizations such as schools, churches, etc. inform people that they don't have to play with violent games to be "cool" or to "feel good" - there are other ways of handling stress. It's interesting that the Sailor Moon Roleplaying book tells how that violence can desensitize players which is why the author of the book recommends against violence.

Has it occurred to you, while you place a great deal of blame on video game makers, that games like you describe will probably not sell. The bottom line is 'pacifying' the opposition in a game is just not exciting. I could play my daughters 'Bear in the Big Blue House' game, but frankly it's a little boring. People play video games for a variety of reasons: stress relief, pleasure, fantasy, escapism and learning. For a real feeling of goodwill towards my fellow man, I'll put down the mouse and play with my kids. I suspect others feel the same way.

You keep stating that makers want to desensitize players. I would contend, and you haven't provided ANY proof to the contrary, that they simply make the games that people want.
You quote 'a friend' or 'a magazine you read' that purports to back up the statement concerning video game makers. You are merely stating your opinion, which is fine. But for those of us who look to debate with passion and ideas, coupled with FACTS and LOGIC, assertions dressed up as fact smells like rubbish.

Proof please.

Only God and Nostradamus likely know, but since video game sales have gone throughout the roof:

From Link
Oh, and can you prove ANY of what your adding to your post as I writing this????????????

So lets use your logic Flute. Right now I'm playing a game called Call of Duty. I get to play an American Paratrooper (much like my grandfather) battling the horrific and genocidal Nazi regime. If only I would be able to sing them a lullaby, or hand them bouquets of flowers, I wouldn't have to shoot them. Yes that's JUST the type of game that would sell. Well, I guess someone who lives in an alternate reality might.

I find pacifying games to be much more exciting than violent games and I do purchase nonviolent games (hence they do sell). Violent games result in destruction (loss of property and/or loss of lives). There's nothing to gain from destruction. Nonviolent games don't offer destruction. They offer new possibilities. Most people are not violent. So most people would prefer nonviolent games. Thus nonviolent games would sell.



Proof

It's obvious that the so called Bandit LOAF Administrator wasn't interested in Joshua's comments and obviously doesn't care about them so he probably doesn't care, period. He probably wants to desensitize players. Game makers don't make customizable games. They make standardized games. They do this because it costs less and takes less time. Game making takes time and money. Furthermore, games like Wing Commander and MechCommander have characters that laugh when they do violent actions. Thus they desensitize the player into thinking that the violence is funny.

Um...OK, I guess we have differing standards of 'proof'. You're quoting an administrator of a gaming forum as speaking for game makers????


Then you clearly are capable of realizing that not everyone thinks alike. So put your self in, well, anyone else on this threads shoes and see that your opinions are being offered up as fact, when they are most clearly not.


Is there some huge groundswell for this type of gaming besides you and 'Joshua'?
They used to make books where you could choose your course of action and ending, I don't remember them selling too well either. At least I don't see any on the market today, maybe I'm just not looking.


You're making this easy. You just justified the reason for your previous statement.

Yes, that's what the administrator is there for; else the game makers probably wouldn't have him there.



And I'm sure you're capable of realizing that everyone can be poisoned. Violence is poison. Screen violence is photonic poison. Violence emerging from speakers is audio poison. Ethnic Cleansing is poison. Wing Commander is poison. MechCommander is poison. Manhunt is poison. The only games that currently can't be made are those that have as the targets in the games people in political office. Actually, Ethnic Cleansing already encourages people to kill Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.


Like I said earlier, most of the population is nonviolent. So nonviolent games would sell.

Game makers could charge more money to make nonviolent games. But they won't. They just sell their violent games with the attitude of "buy it or go away".

I guess you didn't read the Chesterton essay I posted. I didn't expect you would. I will repeat that violent games are more popular because most of the population is nonviolent. They crave it because it's different from their ordinary lives, not because they wish their lives to be filled with anarchy and violence.

Nonviolent games can be rewarding, but when I formerly played games, violent games were the staple because they provided quicker gratification and easier rewards. If I wanted a puzzle or clever conversation, I'd read a book. And I did.

I'm a nonviolent person and I prefer nonviolent games. Eventually they will stop craving violent games and will prefer to play nonviolent games.

That's lovely. I'm a nonviolent person and I prefer violent games. Pleasure to meet you. But that has little to do with the debate. What matters is what a large amount of consumers want. That violent games should be so successful is a good indication.



Eventually? Well, the tide shows no sign of retreating now.

I doubt you find nonviolent games more exciting than violent ones, you may find them more enjoyable but most nonviolent games have a very slow interaction rate and so you do not get the quick reaction high precision excitement of evading enemy bullet spray while hitting your enemy with yours. Many nonviolent games (role playing or games with storylines) are great fun but they tend to have the character going around stealing stuff or sneaking in to somewhere and ruining someone elses plans etc ... all the games are there to allow people to do what they can't do in real life. Surely it is better that we do it on the computer in the computer reality than in real life where we can't go back to an old saved game.

Which nonviolent games have you played that where exciting?


I would push to say that is the attitude of most industries, if you don't like what they're selling why should they bother talking to you when they have customers who are interested in purchasing their wares. If you sold socks and someone came up to you and said I don't like your socks maybe you'd make a pair they did like so there are violent games for people who enjoy that kind of escapism and nonviolent games for people who want to do that. Game makers make what will sell. They do not sell games because they want to brainwash and desensitise you!
They sell and they sell them ... that's how a consumer market works. If it doesn't sell no-one will make it but because people enjoy violent games lots of people will buy them so lots of companies will produce them!


The game involves shooting enemy ships, its part of the story, it makes good gameplay, it is violent. I think I have played a later version of "Wing Commander" called "Wing Commander Prophecy" where you're not fighting the cats anymore so we where talking about different things. It is not however the game makers intent necessarily to desensitise their audience, some of the disgustingly violent video games are needless but banning violence in the media would take about 80-90% of the industry out.

If games represented nature for example something like Sim Ant which is an old game where you have to control an ant colony and take over the back yard and house of a family while defeating the red ants as well. It is perfectly natural yet encourages children to go and attack other ants and kill there queen, run the people out of the house and dominate the garden. Where do you draw the line, is natural violence OK in which case war games are fine because they all happened (in a far more gruesome way than most games represent) and games where your a crazy chainsaw murderer are OK because there have been several. You can't make nature nonviolent or any human being in it ... it is basically necessary for survival and our video game industry gives us the violence in a non-harmful enviroment.

I don't tend to play shoot-em-ups single player but they are great fun with a friend and its much cheaper than going paintballing. Its really just a way of competing in a way you could never do in real life ... hide and seek gets a little lame after you turn 11. There are many things that should never have been made but it is far better to be doing the stuff on the computer than in real life.

Ethnic cleansing is an extreme example and should be taken off the market because it is racist and not because it is violent. And how violent can something get before it becomes "something that turns kids into homicidal desensitised violent trouble makers". Is it OK to push someone or is that encouraging people to use violence instead of talking about it. Is punching someone to get past them because there holding you somewhere OK. Is re-enacting the horrors of the world wars OK in game form to show people how atrocious it all was and in an end to prevent another one. At what point does something become too violent or desensitising to be made ... if your enemy is totally undiplomatic in real life and mutilates your people, is violence not the last option. Violence may not be preferable but it is as much a part of life as death!

Where do you draw the line?

Actually, there are nonviolent games such as Mario Paint that have options to make animation. Another nonviolent game I like is Zoo Tycoon.



Of course they sell games because they want to desensitize players. I just stated the reasons why they do. Like I said earlier. To prove that game makers don't want their players to be desensitized, they can issue a note with each of their "games" that states they don't want players being desensitized. The note can say something like "To the player playing this game. The designers of this game do not want you to be desensitized and/or violent in any way whatsoever." If makers of violent games don't do this, then it's obvious they're trying to desensitize players.


Good riddens.


I draw the line where: "game" has player kill look alike people and/or animals and/or has player commit crimes. If someone designed a violent game in which the targets in the game were people in political office, that game would surely be banned. No politician would support such a game, though there are exceptions like those that support Ethnic Cleansing since in the game Israeli Prime Minister is targeted by the player. I know we have to take the next step forward and ban games that encourage violence against characters that look like ordinary citizens. One example is First Somerset Strikers (part of the BattleTech gaming system). In this "game", one of the characters that gets targeted looks like my friend's father.

No Fluteplayer, you have stated your OPINIONS why they do. Reasons are factual. You have yet to give us any proof (again) that video game makers knowingly and willingly conspire to desensitize players to violence, rather than engaging in simple capitalism and the free market.

What's your point? If you play the game, are going to be brainwashed and go kill him?

This is ridiculous. Why should they have to do that? Do the makers of a power drill have to write "Please do not use this to clean your ears" on their product? If they, don't then it's obvious they're trying to get you to do this. How about every product comes with a set of books listing every possible activity the manufacturer doesn't want you to do. Why should society have to cater to idiots? Game makers don't have to "prove" anything. They don't answer to you.

There should be no "line" with fiction. Who are you to barge into MY fantasy with YOUR reality?

And you still haven't shown why "desensitizing" is bad? What if some don't want to be "sensitive"?

Power drills weren't designed to be used to clean ears. Violent video games were designed to desensitize people. Desensitizing is bad because it conditions people to accept violence as the normal way of handling disputes. Desensitizing is also bad because it gets people to not care about others' safety. If people don't want to be sensitive, then they would probably hurt others.

No, they were designed for entertainment. But as many people as have told you they play games for entertainment, stress relief, etc., you refuse to believe them. I guess we are all just using those games incorrectly,



No, desensitizing, by definition, makes people less sensitive. How it makes people accept or approve of real life violence is a mystery you have not yet revealed to us.

Are people who experienced combat desensitized? I would say yes. Are they more likely to hurt others? Of course not. Are most of our violent crimes perpetrated by returning war heroes? (DTOM, any insight would be appreciated, though I doubt it would do any good in this debate)

You make it sound like the game companies are building some sort of secret army.

If this debate makes me bang my head against the keyboard until it breaks, are Mike and Jaime responsible? Sure they are, they provided no disclaimer saying they don't want that to happen.

Desensitizing makes people less sensitive to the pain and suffering people go through when they are subject to violence. That's why desensitizing is bad. Desensitized people won't care about those who go through pain and suffering.

People who are desensitized are more likely to hurt others. Charles Whitman, a former Marine, did sniper shootings years back in Texas. The U.S. Army has not just requested that soldiers go through counseling but has made it mandatory for them.



Game companies like Origins and WizKids makers of Wing Commander and BattleTech respectively do basically make their "secret armies" of players. They desensitize by conditioning them to like violence and killing. They won't let people redesign the games they produce to be nonviolent games. That's evidence right there they're trying to desensitize people. On CNN, it was reported that stores, when requested by customers, had removed violent imagery from movies and games. Of course the makers of them filed lawsuit claiming that copyright laws prohibited removing the imagery. There's your evidence that game makers are trying to desensitize customers - the game makers try to stop nonviolent progress. If the game makers were interested in sales, they would not file these lawsuits against those removing violent imagery from their games. In effect, the game makers wanted the games to have violence in them to desensitize players - what else would the game makers want the violence in there for.

I'm a soldier, am I more likely to hurt others? Do you understand why you know that Whitman was a Marine? That's because military (present or ex) are less likely to go on a mass murder spree than civilians.
And can you tell me about this 'counseling' that I (as a Soldier) should have been required to go through? I must have slept through it.....that or....it's not true, simply an effort to bolster your argument...hmmm


That has been laid out for you ad nauseum, you've just chosen to ignore it, or call it rubbish.


Um, yeah....auto manufacturers don't let people redesign their cars...this could go on and on.......It's called copyrights, patents and trademarks.

What do you use to support this?



If you're interested in what counseling the Army offers, please contact the Army, like a recruiter or your CO.

We know what the situation is (copyrights). We want to know why that game makers won't allow violent imagery to be edited out. It's because game makers want to desensitize players. The game makers want players to be filled with hate. A perfect example is Ethnic Cleansing. It desensitizes players to hate particular races (Jews, Blacks, Latinos). Another is Wing Commander. It desensitizes players to hate aliens. Another is BattleTech. It desensitizes players to hate various peoples (Federated Commonwealth, Draconis Combine, Free Worlds League, Capellan Confederation, St. Ives Compact, and/or other peoples). Another is Manhunt. It desensitizes players to hate various people. To sum up everything, violent game makers desensitize players by getting them to think that violence is "cool", "funny", etc. The "games" don't get players to hear the pain their targets go through when they die. The games just encourage players to kill targets as fast as possible with no regard to the suffering the target goes through (the desensitization).

Ok does all non-violent games let you redesign them to be violent? When I buy a CD why can't I redesign it to have every song be about cheese? A company releases a product. That's it. They have no obligation to you, except to not commit fraud. If you don't like it don't buy it. If you can do better, start a company. What's the problem?

Oh, and when a soldier tells you that there is no mandatory counseling in the Army, you might want to listen, I'm willing to bet his knowledge of the Army is a bit more personal that yours.

Nice dodge....you just lost all credibility whatsoever with me. I knew you were just throwing out whatever you thought may sound good, with no facts, backup proof or sources.
From the AD Member's Survival Guide:

This debate was entertaining, for entertainments sake. But now it's crossed into an absurd waste of my time.

I think I'll go now and play a nice violent video game

If they're protected by copyright laws probably not.



The problem is that violent games desensitize players.



Army soldiers go through mandatory counseling

The link refers to mandatory counseling for soldiers returning from war. It's about post-traumatic stress syndrome, and although the text does mention 4 soldiers from Fort Bragg killing their wives, it also notes alcohol problems, suicides and communication issues. It's obviously due to psychological instability as an after effect of war, unless you're going to state life as a soldier teaches them to drink and how to correctly tie a noose.

As a relatively accomplished gamer, let me put in my experience in this field:
1.
Like any other product, you must be careful not to stereotype the entire group because of a handful of bad products. I mean, what if you took the ford pinto and wrote off all other cars, because you are afraid they will perform the same. That’s ridiculous. So is saying that all rap or hard rock is bad because one or two “artists” have created foul and despicable material. Sure, if your approach to video games is the same, then of course one or two video game products are going to be terrible despicable games, but that is no reason to paint with a broad brush and include every game where the player is to violently attack something/someone.
2. Ethnic Cleansing as example?
Fluteplayer: that game ethnic cleansing, is by no means a generally accepted game, I hadn’t even heard of it until recently. And I am a huge follower of mainstream games, for both pc and console. So if your going to use it as a posterboy for the entire violent video game industry, then you might as well make PETA the posterboy for liberals, and the Teletubbies the epitome of child entertainment.
Is Ethnic cleansing a violent video game?: yes. Is it an acceptable game?: not by my standards. Is it representative of violent video games as a whole?: by no means.
3. Wing Commander as teaching people to hate aliens?
I have played all the four original Wing commander games, and many of the expansions, and I do not believe that they teach you to “Hate” aliens. Sure, you are instructed to engage and destroy hundreds of alien ships over the game, and the enemy is detestable for its acts of evil against your team. So up to a point, you could say that it teaches you to “hate” your enemy. But it doesn’t teach you to hate the race, for in the games there is a character that is your best friend: Hobbes, an alien from the race of your enemy. so I think the game does a good job in avoiding the racial hate, for if it did, it wouldn’t have your best wingman be of the other race.
4. desensitized? Taught me to kill? Therapeutic?
I have played for many years, and many of the games I have played have been the ones with parental warnings and extreme violence. Maybe I am desensitized to killing, but I haven’t ever had the need to go and attack people for no reason, or go on killing sprees, or even get into fights, especially after playing. I have seen in myself and other friends of mine, that violent games are a place of release or venting our “need” as frustrated teens to do violence. Some of the least violent people I know are the ones who play games regularly. The real fighters I know learn how to kill in the streets, and in schools, not in front of their TV screen.



Quane

Good point, Quane. If violent video games actually taught us how to do the actions represented in the games, then:

There would be a marked increase in the number of new military recruits who are already excellent marksmen, from their experience playing First Person Shooter games;

I would be a really good Special Forces soldier - who needs actual training, right? If I can win "Ghost Recon," then I must know exactly how to be a good soldier, right?

The violent crime rate would be increasing exponentially, since so many millions of people are learning to hate and be violent through these games.

Fluteplayer's thesis in this thread is bereft of reason. I will say definitively that playing any video game five hours per day is unhealthy, both mentally and physically, just as watching television is. But to say that playing violent video games turns people into violent killers and haters is simply not true.

Fluteplayer, you should know that post-traumatic stress syndrome is not limited to seeing violence. ANYONE would need therapy if they have it, regardless of how they got it. You made it sound like ALL members of the Army we're required counseling sessions just because. Nice try, though.

I guess I will chime in after I finish laughing..... okay I have followed this thread and have agreed wholeheartedly against your views Fluteplayer. For me I have been playing video games since the Magnavox was out (shows my age) which is about 20+ years from all types of games from Pong to Max Payne. And like others have said it has not made me desensatized to anything or more proficient at killing anyone or anything in all the types of games I have played.

Just curious do you think Pac-Man is violent since if you eat one of the four globes in one of the four corners you can then eat the ghosts?

If you don't like these games don't buy them, if you think there should be different types of games either create your own or find someone to do it for you.

The ratings we have on games I believe if the stores that sell them and parents are being parents are enough to stop children from getting these. As an adult I don't need someone else to censor for me, that is what my money does for me if I don't like something I don't buy it. As well as others have said after a hard day it is nice to play a game whether it is a board game or a computer game no matter what the content is.

You can always voice your concern to the game companies also, but if you are going to censor games then you might as well censor music and movies because they are equal if not more in the violent content sometimes.

Here's links that prove exposure to violent video games desensitizes people to real violence. Link
Link

That's awfully long....can you give us an exerpt or point us in the general area you want us to read. I, like most every one else here, don't have the time, nor patience to find it.

I, having no life, decided to find it. Fortunately, it wasn't much of an endeavor, because all the article said was



What experiments? Where are the stats? You call this proof? Even the people involved don't consider this proof (notice they said "can cause increases in physiological desensitization to real violence", not does).

Not to mention that there is no proof that somebody that is desensitized will go killing people. If you are ever in a bad car wreck, you better HOPE there is somebody desensitized around you so they can actually do something instead of being driven into a panic by the sight of blood.

Edited to add: Oh, and by the way that comment about video game companies building an army was priceless! There is nothing like having an army of couch potatoes who want to be left alone to play their video games! Forget Al Qaeda, this is the real threat I tell you!

Here is the first paragraph from the study's conclusion:



You will note I highlighted several portions and underlined others. The highlighted portions quite clearly establish that this study PROVES nothing. Were you hoping we wouldn't read that part Fluteplayer? The authors were engaged in a meta-analysis, which only looks at the framework of research, not at the research itself.

The underlined portion is the conclusion arrived at through a literature review. These are three-fold, and you will note that none of them support your thesis. None of these conclusions speak to desensitizing people. They point to what is at best a marginal increase in aggressive tendencies.

Even funnier UltimateJoe I am surprised you did not want to point it out more than just underlining it, it was the first underlined sentence talking about video games are actually has smaller aggressive reaction then violent television does. So lets get rid of TV shows like the road runner/willie coyote cause it shows people how to drop a anvil on the road runner.

We can not as a society prevent everything someone might do and protect everyone from that just because one person as an example might do something, if we were left to that we would be censored up the you know what. Because books, boardgames like battleship, videogames, movies, TV, and hmm what else am I missing oh LIFE would need to be censored.

There is something else to consider in the experiments that were done -- the video games might have had a very minor level of violence. Perhaps they were Heavy Barrel type violent video games rather than hyperviolent games like GTA3. Explain to me why BattleTech and Wing Commander game designers are so desensitized, why they brag about being violent people, and why they stifle any pro-nonviolent comments made by people at their message boards. Explain to me why they don't like people who are nonviolent and why they won't allow people to modify their games to be nonviolent. It looks to me like violent game designers want to desensitize players. The way I see it, the violent game designers can either agree to start permitting people to post pro-nonviolent comments on their message boards and allow people to modify their games to be nonviolent, or they can choose to be accused of promoting desensitized games.

Of course, because scientists are retarded and want their own research to be as ambiguous as possible. Either that or they couldn't afford GTA 3.



prove that they are, and if they are, prove it's a bad thing.



...in the context of the game. I doubt any of them have bodies under their floorboards.



I don't know if you ever realized this, but programmers and designers are NOT the ones operating message boards. You really thing that the actual people that made BattleTech gave up making games so they can operate a message board? Please. Second, a private company with a private message board can have whatever it likes on it. This debate forum doesn't allow certain things as well. No proof of a conspiracy yet.



Prove they don't, in the context of REAL life.



So it's ok for non-violent games to not be able to be modified into violent ones, but not the other way around, right? Why can't I modify my stereo to be a pressure cooker? Does that mean that the makers of my stereo are fundamentally against pressure cookers? OR THAT PEOPLE SHOULD JUST BUY THE PRODUCT THEY WANT? I wouldn't by a green shirt, then get all huffy that the company making it provided no means to turn it white. I'd just by the product I am looking for. Why this is an alien concept to you, I don't understand.




And you have every right to accuse them. That's the great thing about freedom of speech. The one that you feel nobody but you should have. But the good thing is, as of now, freedom of speech is protected, and if I want to sit there, playing Manhunt, killing all those innocent...bits of code, nobody can stop me.

...waiting for circular response...

One of the BattleTech players who goes by the loginname of Cray bragged about how he kills animals in real life.



BattleTech and Wing Commander "games" don't get people sensitized to characters getting killed. In BattleTech and Wing Commander, targeted characters don't give off pain.



And these game makers only want violent speech on their message boards because they want to desensitize readers and players. Explain to me why they don't want pro-nonviolent speech on their message boards.


I just proved it. These people are against freedom of speech - they don't tolerate pro-nonviolent speech.



You want proof? Go to Classic BattleTech or Wing Commander and register at the forum and ask if it's ok to post pro-nonviolent messages. See how fast you get a warning from the administrators/moderators there and/or banned.




Why can't customers have violent products turned into nonviolent products when they want them? You still haven't explained why violent "game" makers won't allow people to modify violent games into nonviolent games. I'd say the reason why you can't explain is because you know they want players to become desensitized.



I do believe that people should have freedom of speech. But I don't believe that freedom of speech should be used to promote violence against others. I'd like to point out that if there was a violent "game" that had as the targeted characters real life politicians, the Secret Service would arrest the makers of that game. I think that we should take this a step further and arrest the makers of people who make games that advocate violence against anyone like Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto 3.

According to you. Care to post a link to a forum or a screenshot that proves this assertion?


And why should they? After all, it's a game. This is nothing new, even since the days of PacMan.


Again, according to you. No proof offered. I'm willing to bet that if someone just wants to find a non-violent way around a particular problem, if there is one, that there would be plenty of responses. If you are talking about an entire thread devoted to trying to redesign the whole game so as to be non-violent, and more "sensitive", I can see where you might have a problem.

After all, that's not what most of the forum members are there for, or care about. They care about finding the loot or power-ups they may have missed, or need help getting out of a situation they are stuck in. You have failed to prove (yet again) that their intention is to promote desensitization.


No, actually, you provided the answer yourself, just a while back:

See, the game is copyrighted. The same with your earlier example of Wal-Mart catering to customers by editing movies and games. The game and movie makers aren't suing Wal-Mart because the want people desensitized to their products. They are suing because Wal-Mart doesn't hold the copyright to those products. Wal-Mart has no right what-so-ever, without the owner's permission, to make any changes at all to the movie or game. They are not the movie director or game designer. It has nothing to do with desensitizing anyone, it has to do with who owns and controls the product.

Really, FlutePlayer, this was amusing to begin with, but not any longer. You have failed time after time to back up any of your assertions with real proof. When others have provided claims contrary to your assertions, you demand proof from them, and then dismiss that proof out of hand, when it is presented. Apparently, you believe that if you scream it loud enough, and often enough, it will be so.

Since you seem so bent on ignoring everyone else, I thought I'd give it one more go, but I will not be making anymore replies to this thread unless you can provide some solid evidence to back up your (so-far) specious claims.

This proves what exactly? That ONE person who plays a game that has violence in it talks about being violent? Not only do we have no proof of his claims (people are known to say things on the internet that aren't true you know...) but you have not established the link between the game and his rumoured violent behaviour. To further invalidate your argument... you have at best suggested that ONE person who plays the game is violent. Games like this sell thousands upon thousands of copies. You are suggesting a massive regime of censorship because ONE PERSON out of a market of hundreds of thousands MAY be violent, and that said violence MAY be caused by the game. Pretty tenuous...



Proving what exactly? Reading books isn't necessarily an empathetic process. Shakespeare never demonstrated people giving off pain... the presentation is in a more visceral experience. Would you have video games projecting some sort of brain-wave that provokes an empathy response?



The only problem (ok, the MAIN problem) with this argument is that we don't know what they want. Assuming your sentiments are correct (you haven't done any work demonstrating they are) then perhaps the problem is not in what you are saying, but where you are saying it. If I post a discussion about racism in the Science and Technology thread of these forums and it is closed or I am admonished it does not mean that the administrators here are opposed to discussions of Racism.



First of all, you haven't demonstrated that they don't want people to modify games for their personal use. You have made a weak demonstration that they won't modify the game themselves. To explain why this is true I'd have to run you through a whole list of very basic arguments regarding marketing, engineering, copyright laws and common sense; but I will distill it into one sentence. IT WOULDN'T BE PROFITABLE FOR GAME MAKERS TO ALTER THEIR GAMES IN THIS FASHION.

If you don't believe me, go to the http://www.classicbattletech.com website and ask him yourself.



They should so that players don't get desensitized by their games. If players don't feel the pain and suffering their targets go through, then they won't feel sorry for them and then the players will then think that killing is fun.



So basically what you're saying is that due to copyright right laws, the coypright owners of the games (the game makers) refuse to allow people to change their violent games into nonviolent games. If that's the case, then then the copyright owning game makers should include a written letter with each game they make to inform the customer that he/she can modify the game to be nonviolent if he/she desires. If the copyright owning game maker doesn't do this, then he/she is trying to desensitize the customer by requiring the customer to refrain from modifying the violent games.



If you doubt that the makers of these games dislike talk of progressive nonviolent messages, then go to the message board links I posted and post some messsages that are progressive nonviolent. Most likely, you'll get a warning and/or banned.



If you doubt the sincerity of my word in that the game makers don't want consumers modifying their games, then go to the websites I posted and find out for yourself. It's obvious why game makers won't issue letters with each game copy they make that would permit the customer to modify the games to be nonviolent - the game makers want to desensitize players so they'll become violence junkie addicts.
Also, you'll notice that game makers don't include a note with their games (which they should) telling players that if they feel like they're becoming desensitized, they should stop playing immediately. We can get Congress to pass a law that would require game makers to include such notes given all the studies that have proven violent media products desensitize people who use them. Desensitization is bad - it leads to people having less respect for life and property. See there's two notes (two ways) that game makers can uphold Freedom of Speech.
And here's another link that shows that violent media products cause youth to be violent: Link

Sorry Fluteplayer but like others have said you have yet to prove your case, why do you make it our responsiblity to prove your case why don't you post on those sites then post the reactions here for us to see.

This is like after the colombine killings which were really bad. But then people did not want to take personal responsibility for their actions and started to blame games, certain types of music. I am not sure if you knew that when Rock n' Roll first came out the adults thought it was satanic. Just look at the movie Footloose (sorry I was young when this came out, but it is a good example) when you shelter people from things you don't or are unwilling to understand it doesn't help. None of the people posting to this over long and getting to no wear debate have stated that these violent video games should be sold to children.

You have yet also to prove that playing the Legend of Zelda has ever taught someone to throw a potion at someone and actually hurt someone. The sad thing that this debate has shown where our society has gone to, where when someone is not willing to take responsibility for their actions they can always find a scapegoat to blame.

As well as having congress making a new law requiring Game makers putting in note that really wont do to much would be a ridiculous law. Frankly how many people do you think would read it? Doh there it is. It is up to the consumer. Wow what revelation. The consumer actually has the power to decide to buy the product or not, so leave it to the consumer not our government to add another law that wont stop anything. Like I have said before if you don't like it change it come up with your own games and distribute them.

In addition to having a note, there could be an electronic note the game could display telling people to stop playing if they feel like they're becoming desensitized. There would be no harm in having such notes.