I agree with GoAmerica about the blowing-off steam bit. Most killers are killers because of negligence, pure and simple....but while there is a certain degree of desensitization, you'll find pretty much the same thing walking through most neighborhoods. For me, the bottom line is, that people that claim to be "inspired" by a bunch of pixels are fundamentally flawed (mentally speaking, of course) to the extent that there is a similar chance that the event (school shooting, etc) would have occured anyway. Blaming games for it is like saying that children do not possess the ability to tell right from wrong. But using scapegoats like Grand Theft Auto and Marilyn Manson sure do make you feel better, doesn't it?

I feel that it is only fair to state that on occasion, I've played video games for 20+ hours straight. Yeah, I know. However, it would also be fair to state that I've never snapped and blown my classmates away with a shotgun. Neither have my freinds, which are almost all gigantic gamers. I'm also a huge fan of a series called Legacy of Kain. A game in which 2 things occur.
1) You, a vampire, slaughter hundreds of people viciously, often times laughing, or spouting phrases like "Vae victus" (I think it means something about suffering...gives the message of the tables being turned or something).
2) You solve mind bending 6 hour+ that greatly improve your logic and problem solving skills.

Now i'm sorry if you believe that the combo of the two breeds some form of genius-criminal. It's also a great stress reliever that, while probobly not the best channel for it, is still a suitable one. Basically, what I'm saying, is that people that blame games/movies/music for the mental anguish of today's youth have absolutely no clue about today's youth. And having no clue about youth is not really a good trait to have, when you are making decisions for youth. Now, saying "Billy, you can't play this because it's too violent." is fine. It's your kid, not mine. But what these people are doing are saying "Billy, you can't play this because I believe that if you do, you'll kill many, many people. It won't be because you are treated like a monster by your peers, or because you're molested on a daily basis by Uncle Carlos over there leering at you from the corner. It will be because OF THE VIDEO GAME." That's absurd to me. Obviously.

Jeez, I get buried in work for a week and I miss my own topic!

I'd like to say a few things about some random happenings along the way. First of all, one of the seven links Fluteplayer provided did include video game violence. It was a joint statement by the American Medical Association and 5 other reputable psychological and medical organizations, and to be fair, it did support his point. However, it said that all the research was still inconclusive and therefore its assertion that video games increase violence is only an educated opinion.

I have to completely disgree with his assertion about nonviolent video games being better at reducing stress without promoting violence. I want to hit something as hard as I can when I lose at Tetris, especially when I'm up past a thousand lines and I get screwed with so many square blocks falling when all I need is an L or a straight. That's the most frustrating game I've ever played and I get much more violent playing it than I do playing Tekken or Quake or GTA3.

And some video games actually can help you learn to do what is represented. Bruce from Tekken has almost perfect muay thai kickboxing form, and I really think playing with him a lot has made my form better just from watching his movements so much. Then again, I train in muay thai for real. Shooting games (with an electronic gun) really do help your aim as well. But that doesn't mean they contribute to violence. In my case, they help me learn an art which would minimize the amount of violence I would have to use if I had no other choice.

I just thought of something, thought I'd add it.

It's widely accepted that playing music for your unborn child and during infancy increases musical interest and interest in the arts.

It is also accepted that what is learned during infancy is often times a part of their character in later life.

Therefore, it seems equally, if raises something that appears more logical than that. if playing video games somehow makes you shoot someone in the face, then it seems, considering the two aforementioned statements above, that reading violent bedtime stories would have a similar effect. If you want to ban violent video games (as some areas have) then you should also make it illegal for parents to read their children 'Little Red Riding Hood'. A story that you're reading your infant about a wolf that can talk, and that murders people. I'm sorry, but that is violent.

I agree that Little Red Riding Hood is not appropriate. I think that any product that emphasizes violence is not appropriate for children. It's shameful that game companies would prefer to promote violence and try to encourage players to kill.

I'm not saying that Little Red Riding Hood is inappropriate in the slightest. I'm actually saying that censoring kids from bedtime stories is equally as ridiculous as censoring them from violent video games. They are going to see violence at an early age regardless, whether it's in the living room, the playground, or any other conceivable place where human beings might be. You seem to indicate that watching violence makes someone violent, even in a unreal setting. Let's weigh that potential truth against the affects of censorship. To those who give in, it causes blindness. To those that don't, it causes bitterness.

A thread where -as games players- most people are experts in the field - handy! After playing computer games for fourteen years I don't feel it makes much difference to violent tendencies. It does provide however another excuse for violent behaviour though. But that said I can see where fluteplayer is coming from.

Most games are violent purely because of a type of game play. If you take the graphics away from Quake you're left with a cursor tracking a block and clicking on it. Fun, but not very inspiring. So we dress it up in graphics to add atmosphere and a sense of place. As the graphics get more and more realistic we’re no longer shooting blocks but people who bleed, collapse and die. I can see why this would lead you into thinking that they desensitise your attitude to violence, but it's still make believe. Same as when I was a kid I‘d play war or get a stick and play lightsabers, all I was doing was adding imagination to a basic need to improve my skills, thus making it more enjoyable.
The need to test and improve your skills stays with you and always remains fun. We can do it physically in sports or in front of a TV screen. If you have violent tendencies then the trigger for it is irrelevant as you will always find one. If it's not playing GTA then it’s a neighbour who parks in front of your driveway! (Current sore point )

Flute player is right about the sale of non violent games. The Sims is consistently top of the sales charts, Tetris is the biggest selling game of all time, FIFA football and Championship manger always go straight in at no1. However the bulk of games regardless of sales tend to be violent in nature.

What is happening is that as graphics get more realistic games are being set in recent situations, from Iraq to the current wave of World War 2 Sims. I don't know about anyone else but for me as enjoyable as the WW2 games are they in no way make war attractive. As one reviewer said about Medal of Honour - 'makes you realise you don't ever, bloody ever want to go to war -ever!'

There is a "game" called Ethnic Cleansing. In this "game", the player plays the role of a KKK or skinhead and machine guns down African-Americans, Latinos, and Jews. I don't believe anyone would be willing to state that that "game" doesn't inspire people to be violent towards others.

Care to provide a source, because I've never seen that game. A preliminary search indicates that the game would be designed and published by a hate group called the National Front. Yes it is inflammatory, but it is a remarkably poor reflection of the video game market. I've heard extremely racist country music artists; should we ban country music?

Here is a source: Link
I personally believe the game should be outright banned.

I agree, that is a horrible game! People all over the nation aught to protest and boycott the manufacturer and any retail that carry the game!

Protesting and boycotting is fine. But NOT BANNING! Censorship cannot be allowed not matter how appalling the subject matter is. If you don't like it do what I do, refuse to buy it. What games people play for entertainment is not the government's business.

In reference to the specific game in question I thinks its laughable. A game like that is hardly going to propagate racism, if anything, it makes racism seem a very iditotic belief.

Banning a game will only increase its attention. There have been numerous incidents involving this, my favorite being 2 Live Crew's breakthrough album.

It was oringally confined to undergound clubs in Florida, and no one cared. However, one copy got into the suburb of someone who happened to be a member of some stupid comittee that dislikes violence or something, and began campaining to ban it. He suceeded, it was banned, ad a record store owner was even arrested for selling it!

Overnight it went Platinum

If banning is done in an effort to "protect" our children, it will fail in its aim.

It only increases the mystification and demand.

First off....Country music is not racist!!! That stuff we call rap, is racist. I think if anything remotley pinpoints violence, it is rap.

Definitley not video games. Most video games these days (save a few) involve killing nazi's or terrorists. What's so bad about that? I play most of the Medal of Honor series, SOCOM: Navy Seals, and I don't feel the need to go out and kill someone.

I believe that violent video games are a rather nominal influence on kids. My brother in law plays a game called "Day of Defeat" It's a world war two shoote 'emp up game that even his three year old plays! I know people would be horrified by this, but other than antagonizing his sister, he is the kindest kid in the whole world. This kid's temperment has not changed and he is one of the most empathic kids I know. Now if he was trying to drown the family dog or feed his sister rat poison, then perhaps I would rethink my position. I believe that genetic predisposition and the influence of parents are the two heaviest factors when it comes to violence. This whole issue reminds me of the mid to late 80s when people argued that rock music encouraged kids to kill themselves. Obviously, genetic predisposition and mental illness were not discussed as much as rock music. Likewise, violent games don't encourage death, it's the child's parenting(or lack thereof) as well as any personal problems(physical, emotional abuse, etc) that lie conveniently behind the popular theory(i.e.-video games)

With that being said, I do not have violent video games myself, and my wife and I will discourage our kids from having them. Of course, kids rebel and there is an allure to what you can't do. We hope to inculcate our children with the same values that we have-militarism and violence not being one of them. We don't believe our child will kill if he plays the game, we just don't want him to believe that the concept of it is o.k.

It's fine. Yes, that game is pretty awful, fluteplayer. But that's no reason to ban violent video games. That's like saying "This one man raped this woman. This proves that most, if not all men are rapists." Also, censorship is never anything to enforce in order to "fix" a problem (assuming there is one, which I'm heavily positive that there isn't, or that the problem is slight and no more about video games than it is news programs or prime time tv). "Fixing" this pseudo-problem could only be accomplished with better parenting. We don't have the right to parent everyone elses children.

We have to ban games that have characters in them that are the targets and are real world look alikes. Right now it's illegal to write a story about killing a real person. So it should be illegal to depict a look alike character in a game that looks like a real person as the target in the game. If someone made a game in which the goal was to kill high school students and the game's characters looked like real students, that game should be banned. That's why Ethnic Cleansing and Grand Theft Auto 3 deserve to be banned too -- they encourage people to kill characters that look like real people.

While we're at it, we should ban sitcoms, for causing people to laugh at other people's dilemmas, superheroes, because no one can really fly, religion, because it's to divisive and leads to violence, and science, for causing people to think too hard.

What you're advocating is keeping people ignorant under the excuse that you know what's better for them. The argument is weak because you've failed to show how video games incite people to violence.

In what galaxy are laws like this being made? It is NOT illegal to write a story about killing someone. It is illegal to write a letter to somebody saying "I'll kill you. Have a nice day." But that is a direct threat. You can write a story about killing whoever you want. If someone wrote a story about killing you, the best you can do is sue them for using your name without permission (same as if they wrote any kind of story about you without permission). Tom Clancy wrote a book about the entire congress getting wiped out by the same method as the 9/11 attacks. Last I heard he was not arrested. And the video games do not depict real (meaning "existing") people, because like I said, they don't want to get sued for basing the game off of someone and have to split profits with them. And speaking of works of fiction, I would love to see which law it is you are talking about.

Responding to the original question...NO. A child has to have something wrong with him/her in order to think that everything a video game character does is okay, or real, or something he/she should do. You cannot possible think straight and think that way. The responsibility should not be on the manufacturer to censor video games but on the...ready, here's a concept, the parents ! The parents should be censoring what their child should be playing or watching, not the manufacturer, and certainly not the government.

CP

I agree with you, for the most part, but would qualify it a little. The manufacturer DOES have a responsibility, to an extent, for the content of their material. That obligation is satisfied by the parental warning labels and rating categories which screen for violence and graphic content. I don't think that playing Grande Theft Auto is appropriate for young children, just as a graphically violent movie would be inappropriate.

I have no problem with that, though I doubt the effectiveness of riding a bike as a stress reliever (never made me feel any better)…but are you saying that no one should be allowed to think that way? You haven't so far, which is where I'm agreeing with you. I'm not saying that every kid should own this, this, and this. I'm saying that it's frighteningly unethical to try and introduce legislation saying that no one can do this thing because I don't like it.



Even as a child, I would be able to ‘learn’ how to kill with a gun…by looking at the gun for a few seconds. It’s seriously not that hard to figure out. Also, the sources you’re using are so dated; it makes me wonder what knowledge you have on today’s youth.



So why, for this entire thread, have you been using these games as your major evidence that violent video games make people violent, when you've clearly just admitted that they aren't?



So, what you’re saying, is that as long as the person doesn’t die, it’s alright? It seems to be that that would harm this hypothetical child more than if they did die. When they do die, it shows a consequence. But, as long as I just am taught to shoot people, I’m fine. Good to know.



Yes. About as much as the radio, news, tv, and being able to see social interactions on any given street corner. The thing is, to disallow anything remotely related to violence, as oppressive as it is, isn’t even possible. But if you become king of the world someday, you would have to ban violent video games, television, news programming, books with any graphic descriptions (aka, books that weren’t written for 4 year olds)…come to think of it, by your logic, we should ban the bible. That’s pretty graphic. Oh, and we also have to ban thinking unhappily, feeling sad, eating meat, etc. We would have to outlaw living in a house, because the wood is cut with a saw, which would immediately teach us to rip people in half with a saw. It would be illegal to smoke, drink, and curse. It would be illegal for sharp objects or things that could possibly start a fire to exist.




Didn’t you just say that these games actually didn’t encourage violence?




are you sure you support freedom of speech? Freedom of speech means no censorship. Censorship is what you’re wishing for. I have no problem with you not liking violent video games. My problem lies in that you want to dictate how everyone else should be allowed to live their lives as pertaining to this matter.

On another note, I'd like to add that fluteplayer has to be pretty brave in attempting to convince what seems to be a thread comprised mostly of video game players that what they're doing is wrong. Even the avatars are from video games. Mine, for instance, is from Twisted Metal: Black. 'becoming human' s avatar is from Baldur's Gate. nighttimer's avatar appears to be from x-men, or something similar.

What I'm saying, Labacia, is that it is unnecessary to create
and distribute a video game that involves such a high level
of gratuitous violence. It's bad enough to see movies that
go over the top, but to have a video game where a child
actually participates and is highly involved in the simulation
of violence - that's not going to help the kid blow off steam.
It's going to "pump him up" if anything.

We live in a world where people seem to be more and more
self-involved, caring less about their fellow-humans. Why
add to that by getting kids hooked on violent video games.

How about baseball, basketball, soccer - real games that
teach kids about teamwork and overcoming obstacles.

I have a nephew who is literally addicted to video games.
(Not the violent ones - he's 8). Nonetheless, he spends
so much time playing his video games that it has made
him somewhat of a hermit. If we want our children to
grow up to be participants in society, we need to get them
to participate with real people - not made up "pretend people"
that they can "pretend to kill," all in the name of fun.

Since when did cultural necessity dictate innovation and creativity? Carmaggedon may not have represented the high-point of Western Culture, but the diversity found in every day life is what makes life interesting. Filling up the corners of human existence with stuff that is inessential is vital to maintaining a vibrant and expanding cultural identity.

I wonder, are you opposed to children say, spending all their time in their rooms working away at their Erector Sets? Sure, it is educational in a small degree, but it is hardly develops social bonds.

What I'm saying is that games like Super Mario Bros. and Legend of Zelda are introductory levels of violence. They don't have the extremeness of other games, yet they still encourage killing. That can lead to players wanting more and more games that have more and more killing to the point where they want to purchase games like GTA3 and Doom and then they get desensitized to the point where they kill real people.

I believe that violent scriptures in the Bible aren't appropriate for young children.

Super Mario Bros. and Legend of Zelda do encourage the use of violence. But since the amount is minimal, it has a minimal effect on people, though it might not for very young children. Indeed if a young kid feels threatened by another kid, he might stab another with a knife after playing Zelda.

I'm not sure freedom of speech means no censorship. The courts have ruled that a person cannot yell fire in a theater. I think also the courts recently ruled that making products that teach people how to make violent products can be illegal - in Grossman's book, he writes how an author was either sued or arrested for writing descriptions of how to make violent products. And laws have been passed that prohibit people from writing stories about killing other real life people. So games like GTA3 and Ethnic Cleansing that have people in them that look like real people deserve to be banned.

The video game pictures are drugs -- they're photonic substances. So in effect, the people who sell video games are drug dealers. These drugs brainwash people into virtual mindless zombies.

Questions to debate:
Question # 1. Should the laws be written so that it is legal for someone to produce a first person shooter "game" in which the targets in the game look like real people who currently hold public office?

Question #2. Should the laws be written so that it is legal for someone to produce a first person shooter "game" in which the targets in the game look like real people who do not currently hold public office?

Question #3. If the answer to question #1 is a no and the answer to question #2 is a yes, why should the laws be written so it's ok to only produce "games" that advocate violence against people who don't public office but it's not ok to produce games against people who do hold public office? In other words, why should people who don't hold public office receive no legal protection while those who are in public office do get legal protection?

Brainwash!?! Come on! You would have to have an unbelievably weak mind, and/or be slightly nuts to begin with to kill people because that's what Mario does. And if a child has such a weak mind the PARENTS of the child should be responsible for ensuring the childs safety. It is not the job of manufacturers to be parents.

CP

Fluteplayer, you have yet to substantiate any single one of your assumptions. Your argument would carry more credence if you did.



Yeah, according to whom?



Again, you need to prove this. I have played all sorts of violent video games, but you know what? The games I play for the most part are completely non-violent. I am obviously not brainwashed. Considering the incredible diffusion of "violent" games (using your EXTREMELY broad definition of the term) I wonder how it is that non-violent games still manage to eke out a market amongst all of us non-thinking addicts.

Oh, you've been warned about changing questions for debate.

As I've stated before, Mario & Zelda games introduce people to make believe violence. The impact is minimal, but it's still an impact. Eventually, the player wants more and more challenges, and then wants to do more and more acts of make believe violence till he/she becomes a violence junkee.

Fluteplayer, simply saying that it is true does not make it so; nor does it convince anyone. If you have proof then share it, and if you do not then you represent your opinions as just that; you have offered speculation not fact.



What leads you to even believe this? Is it universally true? How do you know?

It's a thrill, an adrenaline rush, and at the end of the day, a game.

I played video games all my life, I play paintball now (a REAL LIFE game where I shoot at people with "markers" -paintball guns- a whole lot more violent than Mario or Zelda), but I am also a nurse who takes care of the elderly at a nursing home... in short I am a normal person, have committed no murder ( or at least... never been convicted ...) and I am in the majority of video-game players/adrenaline junkies (I had to add that ) because of that.

the EXTREME MINORITY seems to give us a bad name.... I mean, come on: 2 kids committ an atrocity, it's found that they chew bubblegum. IT'S THE ADDITIVES IN THE BUBBLEGUM THAT'S WORN DOWN THE DEDUCTIVE REASONING ABILITY IN THEIR BRAIN FUNCTION! BAN BUBBLEGUM!

excessive? yes... but gee-whiz guys... kids have been playing army since I can remember (even the egyptians) so if it does wear down our consceince, then it's been doing so for as long as history recalls (maybe Hitler should've cut down on the army-men playing, no?).

but by your reasoning, FlutePlayer, Chess, and any other games where peices are eliminated from the game in order to accomplish a goal (Checkers, Risk, etc.) also "introduce people to make believe violence."

What about game companies that want players to be violent? Looks to me like that video games do desensitize players and make them violent.

FlutePlayer, do you have any proof that video game companies WANT their customers to be violent?

You certainly have your mind made up, and as evidenced by this board, you are in the minority. Why is it that you are so hell-bent on wanting to restricting access to games for others? You have made several unsubstantiated claims, and unless all of the rest of us are lying, we are not anymore violent because of playing video games.
Can you not simply censor and restrict these things in you own life and family?

Perhaps some companies don't want players to be violent, but there are some that do. WizKids, the makers of BattleTech games, has approved of people moderating their websites who're violent. Origins, the maker of Wing Commander, has approved of people moderating the Wing Commander website that seems to encourage players to be violent -- indeed when ideas were suggested for less than lethal super polymer missiles to be used and so called leech equipment so that prisoners could be captured in the games instead of being killed, those ideas were mocked by the website's staff.

OK, once again...can you give us a link or provide ANY proof to these statements????
If you are hoping to change anyone's mind about this topic, you have to give them more than your feelings.

Here are links.
Heavy Metal Pro (makes unit designs for BattleTech)
Wing Commander website
Go to these websites and post ideas for less than lethal ideas and you'll see how fast the mods & admins of the sites disregard them. The people at those sites don't care.

So you would have us sign up on another forum to wait for a possible backing of your claims?
That's not usually the way it works, we're not going to do your homework for you.

Fluteplayer, I don't quite think you're getting it. Is is a huge stress to suggest that people who don't like less-than-lethal video games actively encourage people to be violent, which you have done.

A video-game, just like a book, movie or tv-show must be able to present itself as existing logically in the world it represents. A war game where people don't get hurt would fail to do that pitifully, and probably wouldn't sell, which is the primary concern of the people who make video games.

You have done absolutely nothing to prove that video games promote violent behaviour. You have done absolutely nothing to prove that video game makers directly encourage violence. You have done nothing to suggest that video games introduce people to violence and games of an escalating violent-nature. All you have done is said that it is true over and over again.

I for one don't believe any of those things. Your repeated unsubstantiated claims will do absolutely nothing to change my mind, and they are not likely to sway anyone else in this community.

Fluteplayer, maybe you could argue that video games familiarize kids on ways to commit violence, which is a bad thing even though they might not actually commit the crime? I don't know.

But what i do know, is that everything i've seen in video games appears tenfold in movies and television. And video games and movies have ratings, and like most whimsy laws kids will often get around restrictions to get to what they want to see.

Although its pretty hard to argue the case that video games are educational, my personal experience playing Battlefield 1942 has led me to become involved in history in a way my high school teachers couldnt... In a sense that i am actually reinacting the battles, and every time im in the local barnes and noble im always compelled to go buy a book on WWII or Military history.

So maybe playing Grand Theft Auto Vice City will compel someone to read a book on organized crime? or at least watch Scarface =)

Even if these violent video games do not lead kids
to commit violent crimes, they are not going to affect
children (or anyone for that matter) in a positive way.

They may lead people to feel more liberal about
displaying anger towards others. That can lead to
more aggressive behavior.

It seems so obvious to me (as a parent) that these
types of games are not appropriate for most adults,
let alone children. Why is necessary to partake in
something so negative? (just because it's available??)

And what does that say about our society, that we would
gravitate towards such forms of mentally vehement entertainement.

Another "game" I think should be banned is Super Mass Extinction for the Sega CD. I heard about this from a friend of mine - he wants it banned. It's an adult "game". In this "game", the player is to kill people - innocent people using various methods such as slashing people apart with swords, using chainsaws on them, sledgehammers, and other methods. What's horrible about the game is that the player gets more points for killing younger characters than older ones. Thus if a player kills a baby, the player gets more points than if he/she kills an adult. Games like these deserve to be outright banned - they're nothing more than conditioning people to be murderers later on in life.

Funny, there is no mention of a game called 'Super Mass Extinction' on the Sega website...or on GOOGLE for that matter.
Care to provide some proof for that? Oh, I forgot, you don't back up your claims...you just repeat the same mantra.

It's getting tiresome.

My friend told me of how there was talk of it being pulled off the shelves because many parents and family organizations complained about it. That may explain why you can't find it. I also think that copyrights should not be given to extremely violent games. Copyrights were designed to give writers & authors exclusive rights to useful arts. I don't see extremely violent games as useful arts. It doesn't look good when the government gives copyrights to extremely violent games.

Lets think about this one for a moment shall we? A horribly violent game is being recalled from the market due to a consumer outcry and there is no media coverage whatsoever? Does that make any logical sense?

Fluteplayer, until you are able to back up a single claim you have made your argument will be less than persuasive.

I think by now it's obvious how Flute Player feels about violent video games. I'd like to move past this redundant debate over his distaste.

My son's issue of Game Informer came the other day and it featured the best (and worst) video and computer games of 2003. To be sure there were plenty of shoot-em-ups and killfests like Manhunt, The Getaway, Clock Tower 3 and Silent Hill 3. Manhunt sounds particularly creepy. The review says, "In this highly disturbing title, players are cast into the dark world of snuff films and are forced to perform executions for the mysterious 'Director's' amusement...Manhunt combines the finest of gaming with the worst of humanity."

That doesn't sound like a game I'd want my son playing non-stop on Xmas day.

However, there were plenty of sport games (Madden 2004, Tony Hawk's Underground, ESPN NBA Basketball, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004) and RPG (role playing games) such as Jak II (which is gorgeous), Tron 2.0, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and SOCOM II: U.S. Navy Seals among the top 50 games of 2003.

Video games are no different from DVD's and CD's in the variety of genres to choose from. If you want splatter and gore, there are plenty of games to choose from. However, I doubt playing Max Payne 2 is going to make you a rogue cop on the run anymore than playing Madden 2004 is going to make you the next Michael Vick.

You pay your money and you make your choice. Video games are just another way to kill time and have a little fun. There are violent and disturbing games but nobody is forcing anyone to play them.

Super Mass Extinction? on Sega CD? hrmm...

Although fluteplayer could be telling the truth.. i HIGHLY doubt it, but nonetheless still possible.

First of all, no one i knew owned Sega CD... and from what i remember, it was a total flop of a system, and Sega almost went bankrupt. The only thing "revolutionary" about it was its CD games, but didnt offer better graphics, and as soon as kids realized it... the word was out the system was worthless.

And second of all, with a name like Super MAss Extinction? There is no way in heck it would have hit the shelves.. unless it was about kids running around trying to kill ants by stepping on them, no way that title would have been ok'd... Whats the first thing you think of when you hear Super Mass Extinction? Holocaust.

... And whats this about your "friend" wanting the game banned? Does he actually own a SEga cd? IMO, anyone who actually still owns or plays a Sega CD should be deliberatly made extinct, thats like preferring an 8-track over THX digital surround sound.
-----

Oh along these lines, My friend knows a guy who plays this video game called "PHD", where you play as a student and go around to classes and watch professors lecture about stuff in real time! He's almost through his second year and his spending a lot of time sitting in his living room, but heck it beats paying college tuition when you can buy a 49.99 game to get a graduate degree, i think its on Xbox or playstation 2, not sure. I'll let you know.

This reminds me of G. K Chesterton's essay, "A Defence of Penny Dreadfuls". In it, he defends cheap fiction from the attacks of its detractors, both for it's lack of literary merit, as well as for their supposed effect on young readers. Written 100 years ago, and still applicable to the modern day.



I believe as Chesterton does. The gutter boy.. er.. I mean, violent gamer doesn't play violent games because violence is what he craves in real life, he plays violent games primarily because it's different from real life.

Do read the essay. It's quite interesting.

Violence is learned. Video game violence is learned. Thus video game violence definitely has to be restricted. In medieval times, young boys would train with wooden swords because their masters understood that young boys had to understand the importance of when to use violence and when not to use violence - they wanted young boys to master that important philosophical belief. Many violent video games don't teach the importance of when to use violence and when not to use violence thus they deserve to be restricted or banned. Violent video games, depending on their challenge, distress people. That distress can cause people to be violent. A friend of mine I know played the Sony PlayStation "game" Blast Radius. He was peaceful and nonviolent before playing it. After he played it, he felt like hurting people, even lethally, even his own family members - to him it didn't matter if he had a gun or not. He would've used the first "weapon" he could get a hold of, even tin cans - he felt like throwing them at his family members. Fortunately he didn't get violent - he decided to stop playing Blast Radius as soon as he realized he felt like hurting people. After an hour, his desire to do violence dropped. I am telling you, if we don't do something fast to stop the marketing of violent video games that condition people to be violent, sooner or later we're going to get many desensitized people becoming violent and hurting others.

I agree that violence is learned to a greater or lesser
degree. Many kids may play these violent video games
and there may be no noticable negative effects.

However, for some it will become an addiction that
can only be satiated by going to the next level, whatever
that may be.

Serial killers do not start off as such. Their need for power
and control gradually increases to the point where it takes
greater acts of violence to obtain the "rush". (They may
start by killing small animals, etc.)

In much the same way that simply repeating the same thing over and over again does a pitiful job of convincing people, taking a week off and saying it has the same effect.



According to whom? Care to offer any research on the subject aside from an anecdote that I quite simply don't believe?



Here's what I don't understand... and you've completely failed to respond to my concern on the subject. Violent video games are not new, yet there is no wide-spread video-game triggered violence? If the relationships which you keep on alluding to (and repeatedly ignore trying to PROVE) are true, then where is the result? There is lots of video game violence, but nothing tying violence to those games.

My guess is the reason there isn't as much violence as there could be is because after awhile, the players get calmed down. I'm sure you'd agree that violent games distress people. Violent games often are destructive - the opposing characters in violent games try to destroy the player in some pretend way. This negative feedback from the game's opposing characters distresses the player. That distress can distress someone to the breaking point if he/she doesn't calm down.