My response to smorpheus's post is this - I have reason to believe that some game makers (in particular those that make Grand Theft Auto 3 and Manhunt) do try to desensitize players. They're not sensitive to the feelings of people who might look like the characters in those games. In fact they are insensitive when they place their look alike characters in the games to be targeted. Thus they desensitize the player. In fact, if you go to stores like GameStop, the store clerks at them are desensitized. I've been to them. They have some of the most coldest and inhuman attitudes I've ever experienced.

Ever since there has been any kind of media, society has tended to blame it for its ills. There was a serial killer whose actions were blamed on dime novels back in the early 20th Century. It's all a lot of hogwash. I agree with Chris Rock: "What ever happened to crazy?"

- Rick

You're treating video game stores like nazi death camps. Please. I can't imagine what you're saying to be entirely accurate. I've never walked up to a video game store clerk, asked to purchase a game, and be told "I will kill you.". But hey, I must have gotten the good one. Over, and over.

And, is this even a debate anymore? Seems more like a circus. It's obvious, through 14 redundant pages, that Fluteplayer isn't going to convince anyone else of what he believes, and vice versa. I think this thread is serving more for entertainment value than anything else.

Another thing Fluteplayer before you talk about Manhunt maybe you should research it. The game is based on you a convict on a convicts island where you kill other let me guess convicts for the pleasure of the warden. Most all of the convicts have different types of masks like Jason from Friday the 13th. It is sort of like The Running Man with Arnold Schwarzenegger. So please don't try to tell us what the game is about when you yourself don't. I don't have the game but I did go to their website and also to game reviews. Yes it is a gorey game that is not supposed to be played by children or anyone not interested in playing it.

FlutePlayer, you haven't adressed my point. Don't you think, nevermind I'll re-phrase, in order for someone to warp reality in such a way that what isn't real becomes real, they have to be pyschologically disturbed. And my second point, don't you think that the parents should be held responsible for their child's acts?

CP

No, I don't think they are psychologically disturbed unless the violent games caused them to be psychologically disturbed. What else does someone learn when playing violent games like Grand Theft Auto 3 and/or Manhunt? I think in some situations parents should be held responsible. But if children have been negatively influenced to do wrongful acts, parents should not. Here's an example: A person (who's not the child's parent) tells a child to move an object. The child does but injures someone in the process. The way I see it the parents should not be held responsible, the person that told the child to move the object should be. Now you have to address my point.
Why is it that that games that advocate violence against people in political office are banned yet games that advocate violence against ordinary citizens and police officers are not?

FlutePlayer: That's the whole POINT, if someone CAN be swayed by something that IS NOT REAL, then said person has a WARPED VIEW OF WHAT IS REAL, and therefore, needs some help. And about the parents, they should be responsible for what the their kids are doing, it's that simple.

CP

So if a 16 year old who goes to a party and drinks what he/she thinks is safe (but it is secretly poisoned with alcohol) and drives and accidentally hits and kills someone, should the parents be held responsible? And you still have yet to address my point.

This isn't a good analogy. Alcohol DOES screw with your mind, NO MATTER WHAT, the point is that if a video game messes up how you perceive reality, you are in need of psychological help. I don't know why one is censored, and the other isn't, they both should be uncensored in my opinion, and in the Constitution's opinion.

CP

First off, anyone can tell if thee is alcohol in their drink. It has a distinct taste. If a parent isn't being responsible and not pushing those hard questions of where,who, when? with their kids and letting them go to parties without knowing what's going on and letting them drive to it. Yes, the parents need to be held to some accountability.

It's called good parenting.

But like Conservpat said, it's not a good analogy. Alcohol is restricted to people under the age of 21. Video games on the other hand, even on the lowest amount of violence, are availabel to pretty much any age.

What if the substance doesn't have a particular taste? There are such substances on the market. Why should the parents be held responsible for the wrongful actions of someone who poisoned their children?

Fluteplayer, you are grasping for straws...

Video game manufacturer's mandatorily HAVE to put the rating of the game on the package. Parents should be monitoring their kids activities, what they're buying and be more interactive in their kids lives.

You keep saying this. And again. And again. Care to point out the law that banned such games? As I have said before (and you conveniently ignored) the reason game makers don't create games with characters that are real people (politicians or otherwise) is because they would get sued for using said person for the game without the person's permission. It could be ANYBODY. However, if a game company made a deal with GWB to create a game where the goal is to assassinate him, NOTHING would be done about it, because there is NO LAW prohibiting it. You expect people to take a false statement as a given, and go from there. But it doesn't work that way.

I think there are such laws passed that prohibit such products from being made. A newspaper was investigated by the Secret Service when it depicted a picture of a gun pointed at GWB. I don't know remember the name of the paper. I only read about it on http://www.gwbush.com

I don't know if you are aware of this, but you linked to a Bush PARODY site. Of course, maybe I'm wrong, and Bush really is Sauron (this is the kind of stuff the site has), in which case I will immediately get back to "saving the shire".

Once again, not a single bit of proof or evidence, legitimate or otherwise.

Do you honestly think that games that encourage players to kill real life politicians are ok with the Secret Service?

As long as it's Saddam, Hitler or Bin Laden, I don't care!

Fluteplayer, game manufacturers that want to stay in business aren't going to produce those kinds of games that glorify the murder of a living American Politician. Yes the secret service would have issues if it's the president.

And local law enforcement officials and FBI should be able to have issues if games like Grand Theft Auto 3, BattleTech,and Manhunt glorify violence against ordinary citizens.

Hrmm....you know, I could have sworn we were talking about video games here. However, like I said above, this is utterly pointless.

labacia, I was using my example of poisonous substances to illustrate that people who give them to minors should be held accountable and not their parents.

It doesn't matter what's ok with the Secret Service. The Secret Service are not a legislative body. And a game where President Joe Blough gets assassinated would not get a second glance from the Secret Service. Probably because President Blough isn't a real person. Same as the characters in GTA 3 aren't real people.



Please provide names, addresses, social security numbers, ANY info about these "real people" that get killed in these video games. And even by your own logic (i.e no difference between real and code) how does BattleTech glorify violence against ordinary citizens? Do you have feline extraterrestrials living next door to you? This debate has officially crossed into the realm of surrealism.

you seem to be insinuating that video game manufacturers and even video game clerks should be responsible for a school shooting that happens from a child who bought a specific game? I hope I'm getting this all wrong. I really, really do.

If i'm a video game CEO, it doesn't immediately make me the parent of millions of children. Until there's substantial PROOF(not a opinionated book, and not a friend of a friend) that these games make kids froth at the mouths and pull out Uncle's happy-gun, then CEO is not responsible in any way shape or form for the kid's actions.

I firmly believe that the characters in GTA3 are based on real life people. The makers of that game should've been more sensitive to real life people. You're thinking of Wing Commander when you reference feline characters. BattleTech depicts humans - the graphics in BattleTech look like real people. As far as I'm concerned, BattleTech and GTA3 were designed to be used as training simulators to kill look alike real people. If they were only "just games", then their graphics could've been lessened to where the people would have been faceless.

Fluteplayer you have yet been able to provide proof to back up your case just open ended assertions by you.

One question I have for you are you saying a blank statement that these games should be banned or just for kids. Because you keep on going back and forth on this saying kids then anyone.

I think we all can agree that some of these games should not be played or marketed to kids, but to say that no adult should be able to have the right to play these games is somewhat screwy.

And just because you believe that the characters in GTA3 are based on real life people dont make it fact. Where's your proof that they are based on real life people please share since we all have been asking you to back your points up and still you have not yet.

Besides, how does one then account for the millions upon millions of children that play these games and somehow manage to avoid psychopathic killing sprees?

- Rick

Why do you think the Secret Service would be against games that glorify violence against people in political office? Since Manhunt and GTA3 probably don't have a list of names of people that willfully gave permisson to have their looks copied into those games, I'm guessing the game makers created the games to encourage shootings against people that looked like the targeted characters.

Junk psychology and it gives them the willies...

So aside from your belief that pixelized characters in games are identically based on real people...for which you have no proof, source or links,
You NOW claim that game makers are actually a cabal organized to encourage game players to go out and actually kill those 'supposed' people?
You do understand that one can make an incredible likeness of a human form in most any medium that is not actually based on or looks identical to a living person don't you?
BTW, when these crazed killing zombies put down the mouse or joystick and go hunting after the parallel universe caricature of a character in a game, what happens if they don't find them? Do they kill someone else? Do they go into a dormant phase for the rest of their lives until they come across someone who happens to resemble a player in a game?
I used to at least give you credit for being stubbornly consistent in your proofless argument, but now you're just all over the place.
If you're just pulling people's chain for entertainment sake, you need to take up a hobby.

The makers of Classic BattleTech and Wing Commander, since they brag about being violent people, do intend to desensitize players. If you don't believe me, go their forums and ask if they'd post a rule in their forums that desensitized players may not post. Most likely, you'd get banned.

Fluteplayer,

I doubt you would get banned, but you cant expect to be taken seriously either. How are they to judge the sensitivity of their players? Are they responsible to discriminate against people based on how much they care? No, they only ban people who are either being obscene, obnoxious, or using excess slander or cheating, they have no way of telling if the players are desensitized. Like it has been said earlier, sensitivity is relative. What is the level of healthy sensitivity? Who can determine that objectively?

In both Battletech and Wing Commander games, the players are usually directing their combat prowess in a Simulation against either robots or aliens meant to represent no one. I wouldn’t call the ability to digitally direct a fighter or “walker” in an efficient manner “insensitive”.

Now you might be able to make more of a case with Soldier of Fortune or other highly graphic first person shooters. There is more blood and guts thrown about the room when players use cruel tactics against one another. Now I am not saying they are desensitized, but I am saying that the representation of people dying is much more realistic in games like Soldier of Fortune than Wing Commander.

BUT.. in Soldier of Fortunes defense, most games in the 1st person genre, there are controls that allow you to modify the blood level that you see, and there are parent locks! So, as a parent, you can let little Johnny play SoF, and lock the blood controls to “No Gore” and no blood would spray, no heads would fly off.

I know I am beating a dead horse here, but I cant help but respond to such accusations to very well put together games like Wing commander…



Quane

I think if people make comments like "killing is fun". I'd say that game makers are responsible. In BattleTech, players are supposed to kill off opposing forces including personnel. In Wing Commander, players are supposed to kill off aliens. Totally sensitive people won't do this; people who have become desensitized will.

I think the problem with this discussion is how someone is considered to be desensitized. A person who doesn't harm any real life people, animals, plants, etc. and plays these games is desensitized to the point of killing fictious characters. (they want to kill them). A person who doesn't harm any real life people, animals, plants, etc. and doesn't play these games is totally sensitized. A player who does harm real life people, animals, and/or plants and plays these games is desensitized - that person is desensitized to the feelings of the animals, people, plants, and/or game characters. The question is, how do some people get desensitized from playing video games and decide to kill real living entities? The answer is in Grossman's book page 76.

Killing people IN A GAME, is fun...But if that FUN in a GAME transcends into REALITY for some people, than they are pychologically disturb. It is perfectly fine to have unreal fun, as long as you don't make it real. The game manufacturers aren't making people warp reality, they do that on their own.

CP

Why? Violence is appealing to most males, it varies from person to person, the need to destroy ones enemies is what has kept humans alive and thriving for a few thousand years now. I wouldn’t blame game makers for the testosterone in people’s veins. I would congratulate them for making such a non violent venting place for natural aggression.




And that is my point: they are fictitious characters. They don’t exist, there is no ones “feelings” to be hurt by blasting the life out of a group of pixels on the screen. It isn’t even killing, it is the representation of killing something.
By your definition, then I am a very desensitized person, and I am glad of that, for if I wasn’t, I would have a hard time cleaning my house of ants, mowing my lawn, or voting for the improvement of human progress.

Like it has been said, there are VERY few cases of people becoming killers because of video games, if any. I myself have been playing “violent” video games since they were created, along with hundreds of other people my age, and I don’t know ANY of these “desensitized” people that have gone off and whacked someone because they learned the behavior from a video game.



The highly Desensitized
Quane

Why is it fun to kill animals in a game? I'd like to point out that games like GTA3 could be in violation of the Smith Act - they could be seen as games designed to desensitize people to kill off real life police officers.

Because it's not something most people normally do. They like being able to be outside reality, just as most people don't kill others. It's when the unreal is taken into reality where there is a problem...with that person...not the manufacturer...Also, can you respond to the rest of QC's and my posts.

CP

What's wrong with nonviolent games? Most people are nonviolent. So they'd prefer nonviolent games. I can respond to QC's and your posts. Can you respond to mine? Also, I wouldn't be surprised if law enforcement personnel arrested makes of Grand Theft Auto 3.

Most people are non-violent, that's why they like violent games. It's an ESCAPE FROM REALITY. That's the whole purpose.

CP

Why would they want violent games to escape from reality? Why not nonviolent games? QuaneCorsair, But Grossman has stated that violent games do not release stress. They only worsen it. Violent games distress people. Also, the guy Cray from that BattleTech website brags about having a gun, the same kind used in the Columbine shootings. That should tell you something.

Come on FlutePlayer, I've already explained this, because non-violent games are the NORM. They are too much like normal everyday life. The whole purpose of violent games is to let off some stress and get away from the norm...then going back to being normal. Bringing an attitude that you have in a shoot em up game anywhere else is the fault of the person, not the manufacturer.

CP

nothing, i have no problem with nonviolent games, my favorite game currently is Gran Turismo 3 for playstation 2. and there is nothing violent about racing. unless you count me hurting the "feelings" of people i leave way behind on a racetrack.




Why would they do that? Rockstar has been making games for years, and GTA3 has been out for more than enough time for any arrests to be in place if there was any reason. Rockstar is a professional game making company, they know the limits of the law.
And as a player of GTA 1, 2, 3 and Vice City, i have never really seen any encouragement to go out and kill people that were represented in the games. most of the big characters are satirical caricatures of gangsters and mafia members. not exactly big political figures to alert the secret service or anything.



The Highly Desensitized

Quane

There are nonviolent games that aren't like normal everyday living - like treasure hunt games, Zoo Tycoon, and other games. And how do violent games relieve stress when they only increase stress? Violent games such as BattleTech and Wing Commander usually have the person under attack and therefore under stress.

FlutePlayer, what is your arguement there? I don't understand what is wrong with having fun in such a way?

CP

Conservpat, You were saying that violent video games relieve stress. I was stating how they don't. You were saying how that nonviolent games can't give people an escape from reality. I was saying how they could.

If you can find a person who is STRESSED while playing a game, I'll show you a person that is wound way too tight. And isn't your main arguement that violent games "desensitize"?

CP

my apologies, Grossman has spoken.
Sure, violent video games increase instant stress, no one likes to lose, regardless of whether its racing, fighting, football, or croquet. its called competition, and it does put some stress on people who care a lot about winning.
Overall, i have found that a half hour of venting with a first person shooter leaves me mellow and happy. maybe Grossman has felt otherwise, but that could be because grossman doesnt know how to play well enough to win. and no one likes to lose.


Quane

The people who play harder and harder to win usually get more stressed. QuaneCorsair, I'd like for you to give me a detailed report of how you get mellow and happy from playing a violent game. I don't believe you've found true happiness in violent video games - they're destructive so they can't give anything positive.

for kicks, and on request of fluteplayer:

4:32 get home from work
4:35 eat something
4:38 am tired and relatively angry from work, so click on the Xbox
4:40 get thru all the credits and get to playing Max payne

during the midst of this game I get to do lots of acrobatic stunts involving complex gunfire that disables enemy terrorists and criminals. I take satisfaction in both venting my anger into a non reality medium and being able to pull moves with cool guns that I cant do in real life.
I get killed a few times, but with a little determination am able to beat the difficult segments by slowing down time and leaping out from underneath the balcony to headshot the nasty terrorist waiting for me with an assault rifle. (remember, up to this point, I have done nothing destructive, all I am is pushing buttons and moving my analog joystick)

5:00 I take a break and greet my wife as she gets back from school

5:15 grab a soda and sit back down to finish level

during this entire time, I have gotten my mind off of work, life and all the little things that make life unpleasant, and have been able to be involved in something I understand and enjoy: tactical combat, without repercussions, that has melted my stress away and given me a feeling of satisfaction from beating the level (finally)

5:30 get up and stretch, and help wife with dinner preparation. Feeling mellow (since I have previously vented away my aggression at my job while playing) and happy(since I beat the level, an accomplishment if there ever was one).
No, its not “true happiness” that’s not even attainable by recreation, but that’s a moral absolute that requires its own debate unto itself. But I do feel better than I did before I played the game.


you can say that about anything diffucult. i get stressed playing minigolf, because i am not very good at it, but i want to be. you can get stressed over anything you are trying hard to conquer whether it be reading, soccer, ping pong, GTA 3, monopoly. its all in the personal manner, if you are easily stressed over pressure to succeed, then you will be more stressed regardless of what you try to do.



Quane

Ok, this thread is seriously like a train wreck, you don't want to look but can't help it. So once again I post here, a miserable, broken, shell of a man. I am seriously beginning to feel like that guy from the Mountain Dew commercial, the one repeatedly colliding heads with an adult ram.

First of all, FlutePlayer, I love the way you pick and choose the things your respond to, ignoring all those difficult questions. Nice.



None of us EVER said anything is wrong with nonviolent games. YOU are the one that wants to ban a certain genre, not anyone else. Variety makes life more interesting. And you are still refusing to acknowledge ANY difference between the real world and fantasy. Yes, most people are non-violent IN REAL LIFE. Therefore, it's nice to have something UNLIKE REAL LIFE to entertain you. What is difficult about this concept? You seem to care what people fantasize about.




So why aren't the game makers prosecuted under the Smith Act? Did nobody notice yet? If you bothered to read the Smith Act, you would know that it deal with groups that plot to overthrow the government. Not fantasize about it. Nice try though.

If you honestly do not see the difference between real people and fictional characters, it's called being delusional. Your train of thought is EXACTLY like that of a person who would kill people because of a game, only yours is in the opposite direction. Thinking video game characters are people, and caring about their feelings is along the same lines as thinking real life people are video game characters, and killing them. Obviously, the consequences differ.



I think the problem with this discussion is one man's fascination with the thoughts of others. I can honestly say I don't care if every person in the world fantasizes about murder, rape, child molestation, jaywalking, etc. as long as THEY DON"T DO IT. People's thoughts and fantasies ae their business. This desensitization argument is no more than trying to justify thought control.




Because it's MAKES NO SENSE. It's a forum for fans of the game to discuss it, not for people to preach Grossman propaganda. You know what, THIS forum also has no rules against desensitized people posting. I guess it's also part of the conspiracy.

Edited to add: Flutelplayer, do you believe that all shoes should only have velcro? Because it definitely is frustrating and stressful when you get a knot in your shoe laces and are trying to untie it.

Flute Player, I really wanted to keep out of this. But you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, Quane is saying he felt relaxed after playing a violent video game, not that he found true happiness. Grossman's argument is ignorant of most player's consensus, these games relax us, and we enjoy playing them.

If what appears to be your understanding of violent video games were true, than professional gamers (the people who can live off of playing games for a living at tournaments), would be the worst examples of our creation of sociopath. These people play the games 8-14 hours a day, and are the absolute best of the best at killing and pretty much completely dismantling others in video games. You know why they do it? Because they love it, it's a lot of fun, and a great career. I had an oppurtunity to meet many of these people at last year's Cyberathelete Professional League games in Texas, and these are some of the most adjusted, nice, and intelligent young men you will ever meet (and there's even a growing number of woman in the pros).

Now how can these people be the most vicous, ruthless VIRTUAL killers and not real-life killers and sociopaths? The answer is obvious to any gamer, and probably anyone under 30, and MOST people over 30, why it isn't obvious to you is self-explanatory to anyone who has read this thread.

Your one line responses aren't very contructive to debate, and your SINGLE source simply contradicts everything I know about video games after 20 years of playing and almost three years of working in the industry. This is my craft, and I'd appreciate it if you'd educate yourself a bit more before bring a war to our doorstep.

NO ONE FINDS TRUE HAPPINESS IN A VIDEO GAME! Come on FlutePlayer. If we're going to outlaw violent video games we might as well outlaw the following:

Football and all contact sports: They promote hitting and possibly injuring others, in addition to putting too much stress on the partisipants to win.

Grades in school: Too much pressure is put on children to get an A, so much so that their lives are ruined.

Violent Movies: People might be desensitized by the graphic nature of the movies, safety first.

The list could go on and on....

CP