Interesting article in Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/02/20/what_are_video_games_turning_us_into/
Some of it fluff, some of it alarmist, some of it laudatory.
Just thought somebody might like to read it… it’s listed as 6+ pages but you can skim it quickly
not a bad read.
but,
We yank open the door of a car idling nearby, kick and punch the driver to the curb, steal his car, and tune the radio to vintage rap: NWA. Next we smash sideways into another driver and steal his money and his gun, leaving him motionless in the middle of the road. We slow down to eye the trash-talking, half-naked prostitutes sashaying up the sidewalk. the sidewalk. A woman hops in, and the car rocks obligingly. Unfortunately, our cash is low, so when she opens the door to leave, we whack her over and over again with the butt of the gun and rob back the money we paid for her services. Blood pours from her head onto the pavement. But is she dead? For good measure, we reverse the car over her body before speeding off. The screen accommodatingly paints a set of thick black tire tracks across her back. So goes a game of Grand Theft Auto…
Four years later, and I’ve yet to see any mainstream press about GTA that doesn’t distill the entire gameplay experience down to a “bang a hooker and kill her to get your money back” simulation. Obviously not the point of the piece, but it still manages to frustrate me.
Yeah, I play the GTA games but I really don’t spend a whole lot of time - ever - doing what mainstream journalists ONLY seem to do with that game. But then, I’m a gamer, I’m not looking for a good story for my press beat.
Heh, yeah. It’s especially silly and blown way out of proportion because no one probably does that but maybe once or twice (and probably got the idea from these articles, or discussions on these articles, in the first place). It’s not worth the time and effort to get back your $80 or whatever.
Doesn’t it disturb you that someone would even want to do this once or twice? Don’t bother to answer, I already know it doesn’t. You just said so. But the fact is that there’s something morally wrong with a person who finds this sort of thing amusing, and yes, fun, even once or twice.
As for getting the idea from the articles and so on, nice try. I’ll bet you think the moon is made of green cheese, too. The people I know who have played these games did this stuff on their own and with great glee. And they didn’t stop at once or twice, either. True, eventually they did get bored of pointless, senseless killing, but then that’s hardly a testament to their virtue, is it? In fact, it’s rather telling that you guys can’t tell the difference between men who refuse to kill because it’s immoral and those who refuse simply because it bores them.
But let’s be honest. You do, in effect, get rewarded with money for killing people. It’s not a lot of money, and sometimes the victim doesn’t drop anything, but the reward is there, floating and glowing on the ground. You don’t, however, get paid when you kill a hooker. You’re just getting a refund! :D
Doesn’t it disturb you that someone would even want to do this once or twice? Don’t bother to answer, I already know it doesn’t. You just said so. But the fact is that there’s something morally wrong with a person who finds this sort of thing amusing, and yes, fun, even once or twice. [/quote]
I find it amusing. I’ve also done it more than just one or two times. And I also find it amusing to run people over after I’ve stolen their cars. Hell, back when I was 12 and playing Syndicate I used to deliberately bunch up groups of civilians just so that I could have a big target for my flamethrower. I willingly admit that I find senseless graphic violence amusing, and yes, fun. I just don’t see what is morally wrong with it. I’m not hurting any actual persons and I am perfectly able to distinguish between inflicting violence on animated sprites and inflicting violence on real civilians. So in what way is my acting immoral?
and what about in mario brothers?
i bet people have slaughtered milions of the loyal freedom loving turtles fighting the tyranny of the princess mushroom. how do we know king koopa is the bad guy here? what do we know of the sordid mushroom people’s history?
we just looked at the princess and start killing goombas and turtles left and right. we assume she’s the good guy because she looks human. what kind of racists are we? sure some people stopped playing after a short while because they were bored. but how many stopped because they were involved in an intertribal war that was none of their business? it’s rather telling that no one in the media or this forum decries the slaughter of king koopa’s near helpless footsoldiers by the most murderous italian since mussolini.
Hmm, I think hookers drop as much money as any other civilian in the game?
I’m a firm believer in the relation between videogames and real-world violence, which puts me in the minority on this board, but even I can’t agree with this statement. In my opinion, “trying out” a socially reprehensible act once or twice in a computer game doesn’t reflect on the morality of the individual. I’ve never done the “have sex with hooker for health” bit in GTA, but I did beat one or two drivers to death who gave me trouble when I jacked their car. I have also watched a Sim wet himself because I kept redirecting him away from the bathroom. I’ve clicked on Warcraft 3 characters repeatedly, even though I know that I’m “bugging them” by the increasing irritation in their voices. I don’t think that makes me an immoral person. It does make me curious, which is properly defined as an amoral trait. Then again, most war criminals feel justified in their behavior, so what do I know.
I am more concerned when people (especially kids) get so fascinated by the morbid elements that they don’t care about other elements of the gameplay. If some teenager builds every single house in the Sims in a fiendish way so the inhabitants always go crazy, that’s problematic; that kid needs to do other socially rewarding things, and the game is, in part, responsible for giving her an outlet for this activity. Parents, relatives, and school officials are also responsible, in part, if they remain unaware of such tendencies, or do nothing to try and redirect the teenager.
I draw a line between gamers who briefly flirt with malicious activity, and those for whom this activity is a central focus of play. Your statement seems very black and white, to me. Many kids will do things like pull a cat’s tail, once or twice, even after he or she knows it causes pain to the animal. Most of these kids grow up to responsible pet owners; a sad few become serial killers.
I find it funny how people who don’t play video games make studies on people who do. If they just played it themselves they could see it’s harmless.
Not necessarily. The argument is usually premised on prolonged and continual exposure to these stimuli. The fact that I can smoke the very occasional cigar and drink the occasional beer with no immediate consequence or addiction does not by itself mean that the actions are harmless - either for me or anyone else.
I am not persuaded by the evidence connecting game violence and real world violence, but I won’t pretend that it will just go away if people just played the games. Col. Grossman is a gamer, after all.
Troy
It’s a thing people need to build a bridge and get over. Sure it may make kids more hyperactive, maybe because it’s making the kid’s brain more active and there’s suddenly a ravenous thirst for stimulation.
I think the worst outcome of gaming could be that we’ll become addicted to stimulation. I must admit that i get bored a hell of a lot quicker then a person that doesn’t play video games.
Doesn’t it disturb you that someone would even want to do this once or twice? Don’t bother to answer, I already know it doesn’t. You just said so. But the fact is that there’s something morally wrong with a person who finds this sort of thing amusing, and yes, fun, even once or twice.
As for getting the idea from the articles and so on, nice try. I’ll bet you think the moon is made of green cheese, too. The people I know who have played these games did this stuff on their own and with great glee. And they didn’t stop at once or twice, either. True, eventually they did get bored of pointless, senseless killing, but then that’s hardly a testament to their virtue, is it? In fact, it’s rather telling that you guys can’t tell the difference between men who refuse to kill because it’s immoral and those who refuse simply because it bores them.[/quote]
Shrug. I have no idea if VGs influence behavior, but just like books, movies, music and artwork, I dont especially care what the fuck it does. I like it, it idles away some spare time in an amusing fashion.
I’m not even sure why anyone studies it or writes about it, who fucking cares? Teach your fucking kid how to behave*- problem solved, no need to waste grant money or USA Today’s ink budget.
*and no, I have no suggestions on how to do that, that is up to the breeder to puzzle out.
Heres one for you: what are fucking awful parents doing to video games? Study that, someone!
Or it could be that you are simply a person who gets bored easier than others. I’m certainly one of them, and I was that way before video games were invented, so I know for a fact that they are not the cause of my personality trait.
I’ve heard this violence argument made years ago with regard to TV as well, back when public interest groups would count how many murders an hour were on TV shows. My thought on that was the same as for this issue, that the kids aren’t much of a threat if they’re sitting on their asses watching TV all the time. Serious gamers aren’t a threat, they hate to be outside. Those with morbid facsinations, however, will be able to indulge them thoroughly without ever booting up a console.
It’s the same tired trick that mainstream reporters latched onto years ago and now refuse to let go of – the first-person, zombie-cadence “I steal the car…I shoot the man in the head” monologue.
Not only do these reporters relish the opportunity to mimic Bret Easton Ellis for a few thousand words, they also relish the oh-so-original idea that videogames produce clinical disassociative disorder in all who play them. (My favorite subset of this journalism genre is when the writer “sobers up” and reflects on the searing revelation of his own latent hostility, with the haunted self-examination of a Chris Hedges just returned from Bosnia.)
This is worthless journalism, as games journalism tends to become the farther up one looks on the mainstream totem pole.
Or it could be that you are simply a person who gets bored easier than others. I’m certainly one of them, and I was that way before video games were invented, so I know for a fact that they are not the cause of my personality trait.
[/quote]
Yes, and that’s a question that is utterly obscured by the violence question.
One thing that annoys me about these articles, and conversely the response from gamers (including QT3), is that they nearly always focus on (1) the violence question and (2) GTA. Is attention span reduction caused by gaming, or is gaming caused by a low attention span, or is it just a correlation? What kind of sociological effects does gaming have - is it contributing to the same sorts of societal changes as, say, general 'Net usage? What about the Korean situation - what kind of social effects do they get from the total-electronic-immersion of the youngest third of their population? How can we study guilds and their internal/external interactions? Is there something interesting to be found there?
It’s not my field, so I don’t know if they’re good or bad questions, but surely there is more to discuss than the violence correlation or lack thereof.
You mean beating up the prostitues is not worth the effort? I could never figure out how to do, but I didn’t really care for the driving in GTA3, so I didn’t play it (or its sequals) very long.
Speaking of can’t tell the difference, did you forget that it’s a game? It’s not like any prostitues were killed to make the game.
I dunno, if it wasn’t for the fact I don’t like the genre, I could quite happily bludgeon hookers and old ladies for hours. But then I really liked syndicate wars…