It would difficult to prove any kind of causal link between violent video games and youth engaging in violent behavior. One would have to measure the relative effects of gaming versus other potential influences on violent behavior. Perhaps if there was a community where violent games were not available, but other forms of media like television and movies were available? Perhaps poor urban communities where kids might have access to TV and movies but did not have computers at home? I doubt one would find less incidence of violence in their lives.

Indeed, video gaming is most likely a statistically insignificant factor in child violence. More indicative would be the prevalence of actual violence in the child's life, i.e. at home, in school, in his or her community. Kids learn behaviors by emulating those around them, their parents, their peers, their mentors, not by watching digital pixels.

Focusing on video gaming is a redherring to keep people from having to deal with REAL violence in our communities and our homes.

A couple of years back, I was watching CNN interviewing an "expert" decrying that day's release of a new version of some violent video game. Apparently, it was going to induce our children to go out and kill. Later that day, I was in a store in San Jose where people were lining up to buy it. Mostly (not all), they were middle-class Asians, youthfull (some middle-aged), and because the line had grown so large, they were very apologetic for the inconvenience that they were causing. They seemed embarrassed, polite, and excited.

I live 6 blocks away from a bad neighborhood where individuals carry guns and kill each other. I doubt that they are watching video games. In fact, I wish that they were. So, maybe you didn't have violent video games when you grew up. Maybe you just had John Wayne movies and WW2 films. Didn't y'all cheer the killing then? When I was a kid, we used to play out our "killing" fantasies by sticking a couple of nails into a piece of wood anad pretending that it was a machine gun. We'd point it at the enemy and voice gun noises. Video games are just a technological advancement on that. Nothing more.

Please, do not insult the children by thinking that they are somehow more stupid than you were at that age. They know what a game is. They know what murder is. Just like you did.

It's not the game makers who don't want nonviolence on their message boards, it was the other members of the forum who were telling Joshua to take his opinion elsewhere. I don't understand how you can believe that a forum about a game represents the ideas and opinions of the game makers. The game makers may listen to what is said on those forums and to what is agreed upon, but your opinion about nonviolent video games is the minority, and game makers will do what the majority asks for.

Video games makers are not responsible for the actions of people who play their video games. There is no conclusive evidence that the product they sell harms anyone, there fore they don't have a responsibilty to "protect" anyone from their harmful effects.

It is your opinion that violent video games harm people. But based on the evidence you have provided (which almost everyone here has read and considered fairly), you haven't been able to convince anyone else. My honest and sincere suggestion to you is to either start giving the prevalent opinion in this forum a chance, or go back and find some more convincing evidence. Maybe you should think about how our argument is constructed, even if it doesn't convince you, if you know our argument well it will lead you toward ways you can weaken it..

The Administrators and Moderators at those forums most likely represent the game makers opinions, else they'd probably have others as thpse Administrators and Moderators.
I just posted a link that shows that 30 years of research has proven that violent media negatively affects people. Again, the game makers won't permit their games to be modified into nonviolent versions. Thus they want to desensitize players otherwise they'd let them modify their games into nonviolent games.

No you didn't. You provided a link to a meta-study which interrogates 30 years of research and says that there may be a tenuous link between violent media and behaviour. Your credibility is not being helped by making exaggerated claims that are easily dispelled.

Here's another link that proves media violence causes people to be desensitized. The ethical thing to do is to simply start outlawing and/or taxing violent media.
Link

Actually, that link provides a lot of quotes from people clearly opposed to violence in the media basically saying the same thing over and over again, "There have been studies which clearly prove there is a link between violent behavior in children and violence in the media." (Paraphrased)

There is actually not one shread of "proof" or really a clear explanation of the results of any of the studies mentioned in passing.

FlutePlayer, your argument for debate is not clear. What exactly are you proposing? Bans of violence across all medias or just video games? Bans against this material being shown to children (which I think I could effectively argue is already in place), or against people of all ages? What exactly would you consider "violent" and "non-violent"? I think we can all agree that Grand Theft Auto, Arnold Movies, and Television Cop Dramas are violent, however where do we draw the line? Is Bambi violent because Bambi has to witness his mother die at the beginning of the movie?

Every generation has had it's scapecoat for child delinquency. The 1950's had comic books (the EC Debacle), the 60's and 70's had Rock and Roll, the 80's had Dungeons and Dragons, and now the 90's and 00's have video games. The same argument has been made for each and every one of these mediums. A witch hunt attitude tied around several loosely conducted and biased studies on child hood behavior. You are clearly not thinking logically here Flute, and you really need to take a step back from your own argument for a second so you can get a little objectivity.

I consider media games to be violent when they encourage the player to punch, shove, kick, head bunt, stomp, slap, and/or make weapon attacks. I think that when the player is encouraged to do violence against police officers, prostitutes, and/or ordinary citizens (like in Grand Theft Auto 3 and Manhunt) there has to be a line drawn. We outlaw games that promote violence against people in political office, so we should outlaw violence against ordinary citizens and police officers.

FluterPlayer: First off I would like to commend you on defending your position against Conservatives and Liberals alike for as long as you have Then I'd like to get back to debasing your argument Why isn't it the job of the parents to protect their kids from desensitization. The parents are the ones that are being negligent when their child starts copying characters from their video games, not the companies. The parent/GUARDIAN should be GUARDING their child from becoming what he/she sees in the video game, possibly by explaining that the video game IS NOT REAL.

CP

Good one Conservpat!!

I don't understand either how parents aren't responsible for what their kids play and bring into THEIR home.

Another thing, what kind of game WOULD you play flute player?!

Conservpat, First of all I'm glad you understand that violent games desensitize players. Second, I do believe that parents have an obligation to protect their youth from violent games. But I do believe that games that encourage violence against innocent people deserve to be banned. All violent games should be taxed because they desensitize players. The problem is, many parents are working long hours and they can't always be around their youth to shield them from violent media products so they won't become desensitized. Furthermore, since violent games do desensitize players, they should inlclude a warning as I've stated earlier. What I don't understand is why people would want to protect violent games like Manhunt. Manhunt teaches people how to kill. People don't protect books like Hit-Man. I'm not sure that in some states a game like Manhunt could be legal. Some states have passed laws that make it a crime to create violent press in which the targets are real people. The makers of Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto could be arrested for having their games make violent threats against look alike real people. Also, some parents might not realize that violent games do desensitize players. Another problem is that people who're supposed to watch youth for parents might introduce them to violent games which is why they should be banned.
Link
I play nonviolent games that require the use of teams of players.

Um... Fluteplayer, Conservpat wasn't agreeing with you...

For one:
A child is subject to the overseeing of the guardian, and if the adult guardian sees fit he can allow or not allow the child to play anything, including violent video games. And since all video games in the mainstream have a rating on the front or side of the box that says the age group and why they are rated, any half wit parent can see what the game will entail.
Games are rated just like movies, there are games made for general audience, for teens, and for adults. You wouldn’t let a seven year old see “House of 1000 Corpses” a movie by Rob Zombie or at least I wouldn’t. that’s my prerogative, as a guardian, I have control over what my children watch in my house.
When I was younger, my parents wouldn’t let me play Doom, so I didn’t. any parent worth his child has some level of control over what they participate in, especially in their home. And if you cant judge the character of those that watch your kids, then don’t leave them with other people until you can. Or at least give them explicit instructions if you really care that much.

Secondly:
Now that I am an adult, I am free to make my own choices when it comes to entertainment. That’s how this country works. If I wanted to go down to the video store and buy a game that contained nudity, despicable violence, and racial slurs against blondes. That’s my business, if I am a mature enough individual to decide whether I want to be “desensitized” or not, then I can choose what I want to play.
In the root of this, it becomes a censorship issue. What do we censor? And where do we stop censoring once we stop?

I don’t like some games that are out there, there are many I wont play because they are offensive to me. But that doesn’t mean I want to ban them, sure I agree with carding younger people who want to buy a game that says 18+ on the rating box. But I do not take the side of total censorship of these products. Especially if the view of negativity is so extreme that any violence is considered too much.
Wing commander? Oh my…




Quane

I'm not saying that, I was just playing devils advocate, I was saying that if some games DO desensitize, that guardians are responsible for their children's acts.

CP

Since we seem to be divided about whether or not violent games desensitize players, how about we simply include the notes like I've stated. What would be the harm?

> Newbie First real post please be kind

I have to say no. Video games/media do not lead children to violence. In my attempt top address the issue of violence amongst our youth and the role of media which includes video games plays. I feal I must draw attention to an alarming trend now being reviewed by folks in the wonderful world of psychiatry. I became aware of the issue while viewing an interview with the father of a young man here in NJ whom had been arrested for plotting a school massacre. Apparently during the time of the preparation to murder the child was being weened off of a psychotropic drug. This naturally lends into a which came first type debate "chicken or egg" though it is certainly an area which needs to be addressed. I can't help but wonder exactly what the cocktail of overwhelming hormonal change now topped off with mind altering drugs does to a young person. I grew up listening to Black Sabbath watching The Omen, Freddy and Texas Chainsaw Massacre Proceeded to shave my head in college and Punk out and I never contemplated murder. So my question is exactly what is the variable that now leads children to violence. Is it taking the easy way out to blame violent video games and similar media for the rise in violence or should we be looking further.

http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/cinc_post3.html

Well, I think in order to do something like that you need a heck of a lot more compelling evidence that desensitization actually occurs. The video game companies have already shown that they are willing to put a warning on their games if customers are at risk, almost every single video game contains this caption on the box, in the manual, and occasionally in-game:

"Photosensitive Seizure Warning
A very small percentage of people may experience a seizure when exposed to certain visual images, including flashing lights or patterns that may appear in video games. Even people who have no history of seizures or epilepsy may have an undiagnosed condition that can cause these "photosensitive epileptic seizures" while watching video games.

These seizures may have a variety of symptoms, including lightheadedness, altered vision, eye or face twitching, jerking or shaking of arms or legs, disorientation, confusion, or momentary loss of awareness. Seizures may also cause loss of consciousness or convulsions that can lead to injury from falling down or striking nearby objects.

Immediately stop playing and consult a doctor if you experience any of these symptoms. Parents should watch for or ask their children about the above symptoms - children and teenagers are more likely than adults to experience these seizures.

The risk of photosensitive epileptic seizures may be reduced by taking the following precautions:
Play in a well-lit room
Do not play when you are drowsy or fatigued
If you or any of your relatives have a history of seizures or epilepsy, consult a doctor before playing. "

So there was a recent scientific linkage (this really only popped up about a decade ago), between video games flashing lites and epileptic seizures. Once compelling evidence was brought forth that this was in fact a serious problem, games which contain said flashing lights began including the warning above.

The difference I think, is that you have to prove to the majority of people that this is or could be a problem, which as you can probably see from these forums is going to be an uphill battle, as most of us believe very strongly that video games don't cause or instigate any pyschologically abnormal behavior that isn't already there in the player.

The reason why many players haven't became violent is simple - they haven't became distressed by them. They probably haven't played the higher levels of violent games. Here's a discussion I had with someone who played a distressing level of a game called WarCraft:



Looks like violent games can desensitize people. So what's wrong with video game makers being required to include a note in each game they make that would 1, permit consumers to modify games to be nonviolent if they desire; and 2, to inform consumers to stop playing immediately if the game is desensitizing them?
Thing is, just as too much food can give someone a stomach ache, too much violence can give someone an overload of distress. For those of you who doubt that violent games don't cause people to be desensitized, play the hardest levels of these violent games and then tell me if they don't desensitize you.

Fluteplayer, I hate to say it but your personal anecdotes carry no weight whatsoever. Personally, I believe you are making them up completely as the manner of these supposed dialogues, and the way you present them seem completely artificial. Would you care to substantiate any of them with some context; anything that would make them believable?

I don't know, Flute, that just seems ridiculous.

The reason games like GTA and Manhunt are so revered by the players are because they are such a great release for the stresses of real life. It's because you can go on a 40 minute rampage against the cops in the game, with absolutely no reprucrussions. When the cops finally kill you, you just load the last game and try again. Now if you can't seperate killing peasents in Warcraft III from killing rabbits on a lawn, then you have a serious psychological disorder that is not caused by the game. What you are completely missing here is that you have to actually connect behavior in a game to causing it in real life. You also have to prove that the person who is playing the game did not have a psychopathic condition BEFORE they started playing the game. What I see in your "real-life" example is the same behavior the player is exhibiting in-game being exhibited in real-life. I don't see this as a cause and effect example.

I would also like to point out that Warcraft in no way encourages you to kill your own peasents. Yes, you can kill them, but there is generally very little reason to, and in most cases it would actually hurt your ability to "beat" the game. The fact that this player wanted to kill them because they weren't "moving fast enough" or whatever, is a great example of how the player has issues they probably have to deal which have nothing to do with video games.

From your comments I can see you have little to no experience playing modern games Fluteplayer. I don't think you can accurately criticize an entire genre of entertainment without experiencing it first hand. You have no idea of what is going on in a gamer's head because you have never been there and experienced why gamers enjoy playing their games.

I think it's clear you are afraid of something you don't understand, I have never heard of an ex-gamer expounding the dangers of modern 3D gaming, and even if there are a few they clearly don't even really represent a signficant minority. Is it because we all are brainwashed by the games, or that we understand them?

FlutePlayer: Does that mean that your friend is going to go to some farm and start mowing down the farmers? Of course not because he can differentiate between a game and reality, and if a child cannot do that there is either something wrong with him/her and/or his parents aren't doing their job.

CP

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!?????
Oh Fluteplayer, you're just grasping at straws now! That's the funniest thing I've read on AD since I've been here! You should be a writer for Saturday Night Live!


Now come on, who here HASN'T killed off a couple of those pesky workers on real time stratigic war games? You know, if you click on them repeatedly, they say different quotes. Who hasn't gotten frustrated with poor AI in video games? This is too funny!!!

DIE PEONs! DIE!!!!!!! muhahahaha!!!!!

I doubted you before, but since you quoted "Guy", I agree with you fully. This is proof indeed.

I have had a homeless guy try to convince me that he is God. That if I do not give him all of my material possessions, he will negate my existence. Should I start telling the world that I found proof of God's existence?



I'm truly speechless. Yes, any difficult task can frustrate you, what's you point? This argument has ZILCH to do with violence. Are you now against games that are challenging? Because I can definitely tell you that there are few violent games out there that are nearly as frustrating as Tetris.

I have literally banged my head against the keyboard reading this thread before. By your theory you should provide a disclaimer at the top of each of your posts.

Also if you have the time, a good thing to do would be to look up the definitions of "proof" and "evidence" and compare the differences. You seem to use them interchangeably. But, of course, what you offered in this post is neither. It's a work of fiction.

Not to mention the fact that "Guy" did not do a single violent thing, according to your story. So there goes that theory. Unless you want to feel sorry for video game characters, peasants or otherwise.

But I say "KILL THEM ALL, LET CPU SORT THEM OUT!!!" Because I am such a danger to society, as you previously let me know.

Ultimate Joe, I am not making this up.

Smorpheus, I don't think this person has a psychopathic condition at all. I would like to see you play some RTS games and try to beat their hardest levels. In fact, try beat them without losing any personnel. Then tell me if you're not distressed by them.



What I understand is that the makers of violent games do not care how desensitized players get after playing them. From what I understand, the makers of Wing Commander and Classic BattleTech want players to be violent. They want to desensitize players. This has to stop. They won't allow players to use nonviolent means to play their games. They won't allow players to modify their games to be nonviolent. Thus they want to desensitize players. You have yet to debate this.





I have played modern games, though not the violent ones like GTA3 and Manhunt. I quit playing the modern games as soon as I read Grossman's book Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill.



Conservpat, first of all I consider him simply someone I met in a store. I can't consider him a friend beause I don't know enough about him. Second, after playing WarCraft, he might be so conditioned to think that if he sees farmers out in fields he should hurt them to knock what he believes is some sense into them.



Billy Jean, do you think that killing rabbits is funny?



Looms, This Guy didn't want to reveal his identity.



My point is, these violent games that are so extreme will desensitize players.


Yes.


But Tetris doesn't have the graphical detail that other games like WarCraft, GTA3, and Manhunt do so Tetris can't have as much an effect on players as the other games can.

Wow fluteplayer more and more people are joining this thread and you have not convinced anyone still. Good job

Only if he has a warped view of what is real and what isn't, and in which case he should consider psychological help. And if he can't distinguish reality from the game that is not the game's fault, ergo it isn't the manufacturer's fault.

CP

No, but they sure are good eating. And when I was a little tom boy I would spend a month out of the summer at my grandparents farm, I'd hunt rabbits that's get in my grandpa's garden with a 22 riffle and I'd get $5 for every one I'd kill. I wouldn't say it was funny, but I enjoyed the benefits of killing the pests and getting to help my grandpa.

Fluteplayer, you can't honestly expect all of us to take that Q&A you posted seriously, can you?

OK, I've been afraid to say this because I'm pretty sure you're going to take my arguments as being severely biased and motivated by propaganda, but remember I've been playing games for 20 years or so... Now, I work in the gaming industry, I have worked on several popular games that have been made in the past two years, I'd really prefer not to say which company and what games, but If you really want to know just PM me. I just don't want my comments to be misinterpreted as representive of the publisher I work for. My opinions are my own and were formulated long before I actually worked in the industry.

Now I have worked exclusively on games which you would consider violent, Fluteplayer, I have worked intricately from the very early stages of the game planning process right up to the event that the game goes "Gold." In fact, in the process it is my team which gives the final 'OK' for the game to be released. Now, I can tell you, first-hand, that the word desensitization absolutely never comes up during game creation or game development. It is simply not something we think about, and is most definitely not something we try to do to our customers. What we do think about is what gamers want. Gamers want realistic recreations of World War II battles whether from a first person perspective (FPS), or a "God" perspective (RTS), gamers want to be able to play as the characters in the movies they love (Licensed and often extremely violent games), and most importantly gamers want a game that is fun.

Your assumption that violent games lead to desensitization which leads to a vicous cycle of needing more and more violence, is false. Flat-out false. I know literally hundreds of gamers, and every single one of them will play a game regardless of it's violence level, based solely on how fun the game is. Take a look at top sales charts for this past christmas season, there were several top-selling completely non-violent games (The Sims, EA's Sports line up, almost every first party Nintendo game(Specifically the most recent Mario Kart and F-Zero incarnations), and Tony Hawk Underground are all good examples).

The publisher is not a sort of corporate giant with the sole goal of densensitizing our players so they'll buy more games. In fact, I seriously doubt there is any correlation between desensitization and game purchasing. The only reason the publisher I work for exists is to make money, the reason people work for this publisher is because we like games and we want to make the best games for everyone to enjoy (trust me, it's not for the pay). I simply don't see where your conspiracy theory about publishers and developers wanting to desensitize people fits in?! What motive could we possibly have for doing so?

We make what the players want. What most players want definitely fits into your definition of a violent game, otherwise we would never make them in the first place. If GAMERS no longer want to play violent games, then we're not going to make them anymore. Attacking the developers for giving people what they want seems a little fecious, why not go after the gore-hungry consumers? And trust me they definitely are gore-hungry. Did developers make them that way? I really, really don't think so.

As an additional note, I have played I would say about 100-120 hours of Warcraft III since it came out a year and a half ago. And not once did it occur to me that killing my own citizens would be a fun thing to do(Because it would result in me losing the game I'm playing against a real person). Now not losing any personnel, that's a completely different argument that you certainly weren't making with your original example. Like real war (it's called warcraft), you do lose units in battle, but I don't see why that would make me want to kill my peasents?!?!

Directly associating human peasents in warcraft with real-life rabbits, and being unable to seperate the consequences of killing either is a psychological problem that the game has not created.

Conservpat, But the game caused him to have a warped view - it distressed and desensitized him.



Billy Jean, yes I do.



Smorpheus, it's like I stated earlier. A person who is desensitized to violence will become a violence junkie and will desire more and more violence. What I would like to know is, would your game company permit players to modify any violent games the company makes and if not, why not? And please don't limit your answer to "No because copyright laws don't allow it". What is your opinion of game makers that won't allow people to modify their violent games into being nonviolent games and why do you think they don't want their games modified if players want violent games modified into nonviolent games?



So you're telling me that it is impossible to design a WarCraft battle that will not distress the player - that any WarCraft battle can be won by a player?

How? Has he started killing farmers? If the game really has a deep pychological effect on him that makes him do things he otherwise wouldn't, that tells us one thing...the dude's got a weak mind, or he's nuts! Who kills people because you kill people in a game? A sick minded person! Normal people are not going to go kill a guy because he just played a shoot 'em up game!

CP

Well, to be honest, not many of us are. Many people, even one that works for the industry and others who are avid gamers have debunked your claims. You're proof is weak and usually contradicts your stance. And the "conversation" you posted could easily have been made up. It's not linked to another site or thread. You keep saying that violent video games desensitizes people, but wheres the effects? Show us EXAMPLES of kids that have gone out and killed, maimed and have been destructive. Show us where the parents say that their kid sat in front of their Playstation constantly and became this inhuman freak that snapped! Show us where the kid's peers at schools say this kid was all consumed with this violent video game and torchered the class gerbil. SHOW US SOMETHING! Because your argument is baseless and repetitive so far.

And more importantly we need evidence that A: The kid was a little angel [psychologically] before this happened, we need to know that the game corrupted a sound mind, not pushed it off the diving board and into the deep end. And B: the kid never had any other mental breakdowns prior to the game.

CP

If someone makes a violent "game" in which the objective is to kill classmates at his/her school, I think everyone can agree that it would desensitize players - it's an anti-school"game". That's what Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto 3 are - they are anti-community "games" - from what I understand, they have target characters in their "games" that look like real people. A sensitive person would be sensitive to the feelings of those real people and not make real look alike people the targets. So as you can see, they do desensitize players.

It's a given that their subject matter is questionable but first of all, a parent should be more involved in the games that their child views and plays, and second, again, if you kill someone because you saw it in a game there is something wrong with you

CP

Jeez, I couldn't resist even though I told myself I wouldn't re-enter this ridiculous debate. But this takes the cake.
[quote]from what I understand, they have target characters in their "games" that look like real people.[/quote]
Do you honestly mean that we have all spent time out of our lives, that we will never get back, on your argument of whether violent video games de-sensitize players.......and you don't have any first hand information for your quite vociferous point of view???????
Fluteplayer has posted to this thread 56 times. And we now come to the conclusion that a rather cult-like obsession with a book by Mr. Grossman is the entire basis and 'proof' for this merry-go-round of a thread. Jeepers.

[quote]from what I understand, they have target characters in their "games" that look like real people. A sensitive person would be sensitive to the feelings of those real people and not make real look alike people the targets. So as you can see, they do desensitize players. [/quote]
Yes, some characters in video games are designed to look like human beings. If you can prove that they represent actual living 'for real' people, then get your law degree and contact them, you will be rich.

[quote]QUOTE 

This argument has ZILCH to do with violence. Are you now against games that are challenging?


Yes. [/quote]

Dear god, we don't want to challenge anybody, do we. By definition video games are designed to be challenging....so you must not play ANY, right?
And your argument to make game manufacturers allow for de-violencing is rendered null and void, they can't make them non-challenging.
[quote]I play nonviolent games that require the use of teams of players. [/quote]
Wait...aren't those challenging??????

[quote]I don't think this person has a psychopathic condition at all. I would like to see you play some RTS games and try to beat their hardest levels. In fact, try beat them without losing any personnel. Then tell me if you're not distressed by them.[/quote]
I routinely play all of the games I buy until I beat the last level. It's somewhat fiscally irresponsible not to. And by golly, some of them I'm pretty good at, and no...I don't feel distressed. I get distressed by REAL WORLD issues, not some silly game.

[quote]They want to desensitize players. This has to stop. They won't allow players to use nonviolent means to play their games. They won't allow players to modify their games to be nonviolent. Thus they want to desensitize players. You have yet to debate this.
[/quote]
No, you have yet to provide ANY evidence of this whatsoever. You're the one not debating here. Most of the members of AD are pretty open minded and will listen to the opposing point of view on a wide range of issues. But this has been something you seem to be unable to comprehend. Simply repeating your same diatribe as a mantra will not convince anyone.

[quote]For those of you who doubt that violent games don't cause people to be desensitized, play the hardest levels of these violent games and then tell me if they don't desensitize you.
[/quote]
OK, I just did...see above.
[quote]All violent games should be taxed because they desensitize players.[/quote]
[quote]Another problem is that people who're supposed to watch youth for parents might introduce them to violent games which is why they should be banned.[/quote]
Um.....It's also best when debating, to stay consistent in your argument...at least within the same post.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
[quote]In BattleTech and Wing Commander, targeted characters don't give off pain. [/quote]
Yet another inconsistency.
Normal people realize pixels are not people, and pixels don't have feelings, pain or suffering.

I better stop now, I'm feeling distressed. Maybe killing some rabbits would help.....

Why is it that you don't think that targeted characters in games that look like real people is being sensitive to the feelings of those real people? If someone made a game in which I was the target I would not consider that person sensitive to my feelings.

Flute, your statement would have to be based on the very thin assumption that all the 'human' characters in video games were based, modeled and depicted on actual, living, named persons.
They are not.

What about Ethnic Cleansing? Surely it should be banned. It is designed to desensitize players to hate and kill people of different races (blacks, Latinos, and Jews to be exact). Looks to me like games can desensitize. How can Ethnic Cleansing not desensitize someone to hate and kill different races? At the end of the Ethnic Cleansing "game" the player is encouraged to kill Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.



How do you know?

You are taking one game and using it as the benchmark for your argument to either tax or ban all video games that YOU deem violent. One game, BTW that I have not seen for sale ANYWHERE. Probably not a widespread problem, dont'cha think?

We already got that from your other 57 posts.


YOU brought it up! The burden of proof is on you. Let's ask smorpheus who works on designing video games, if they have that much extra time on their hands where they can flip open the phone book to find unsuspecting citizens to model groupings of pixels together on.

Main Entry: 1proof
Pronunciation: 'prüf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, alteration of preove, from Old French preuve, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove -- more at PROVE
Date: 13th century
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

Obviously you're not familiar with Grand Theft Auto 3, Ethnic Cleansing, and/or Manhunt. Those games have characters in them that look like real people. And you have yet to debate how you think that Ethnic Cleansing cannot desensitize someone. Some people think that outlawing games that promote violence against others is a conservative idea but I disagree. It's a liberal idea - I believe the Declaration of Independence (the liberal document the Constitution origninated from) states that people are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as in we don't get killed and/or harmed from people who do violent acts because they were desensitized from playing violent games.

And you have yet to provide any legitimate reason for trying to control people's thoughts. Why should somebody be forced to be sensitive if they don't want to? You are talking thought police.

Oh, I'm quite familiar with games that have characters that look like people. Who are these mystical people?
Are they pixels grouped together in the human form to resemble people, as is done in every other medium?
What 'real' people are you talking about? Give me a name......give me an address....hell, give me a debate.
Rational people realize that art imitates life. Art is not life. If someone thinks pixelized characters are representative of actual walking around people, they have indeed been desensitized...from reality.

Your form of debate is also known as Begging the Question / Circularity .
Only you would draw a referential line from the Declaration of Independence to video games.

I don't believe in forcing people to be sensitive. I believe in outlawing games that desensitize people. A person can be neutral for all I care.

What if one of the targeted characters in Manhunt looked like President Washington? Would you say that it is not representative of the real President Washington?

You know Flute, you could have something in common with the game Ethnic Cleansing.
It is made with graphics engine software called Genesis 3D, an open source product that enables independent third parties to author any game of their choosing, no matter how objectionable or non-violent its content.
You could design your own non-violent, non-challenging games.

BTW Ethnic Cleansing is only produced by and available from the National Alliance website. Why are you expending so much energy on a by-product of the hate group, and not the group itself?

Ethnic Cleansing is designed to desensitize players (what this thread is debating about). I was using it as an example.

Ethnic Cleansing is designed with one thing in mind. Spreading hate, the violence is secondary.

I don't think so. It's obvious that the makers of that game intend on getting people violent to where they'll want to shoot blacks, Latinos, and Jews. If they didn't, they would've designed nonviolent hate games. Like for example instead of shooting such characters, the player could place Xes on them - that would be much harder to draw an X on a moving character than it would be to simply shoot at one.

Ahem...OK, I'm done laughing now. How many games of any genre will you sell, where the player draws an X on the enemy?
Not only would it be considered non-violent and non-challenging, it would have to be marketed to Kindergartners.

Actually, I think my daughter has a Blue's Clues game that does something like that.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I highly doubt the National Alliance is interested in using a video game as a means to de-sensitize game players. Their agenda is far more sinister. And the people they market games to already view violence against minorities as 'the chosen path'. I can't imagine for the world what a non-violent hate game would be.

But enough about Ethnic Cleansing. Care to address any of the other posts that people have written. I'm particularly interested in your take of smorpheus's post, since he actually works in the gaming industry.