Are violent video games damaging to society?

[jayseven]

I was rude. Edited.

[Dan_Dare]

 

 

why not? movies do it all the timeive read books that were horrificly violent, and often, its sickening, you dont want to be involved in violence like that.

 

 

 

i think the main problem is people fail to see that everything in games dosent have to be fun. playing wolrd at war last christmas, i was doing a mission involving dissabling japanise anti air fire, towards the end of the mission i managed to capture an AA gun, and turned it down the trenches, the ferocity of the level had actualy gotten to me, id dare say i was probebly gritting my teeth in an agressive manner at the time. as the smoke cleared and i survayed what i had done, i saw piles of dead enemy soilders, litteraly blown appart and mutilated by the bullets. i was shocked, i felt sick and even a little ashamed of my self for what i hade done. it wasnt enjoyable, it wasnt gratifying, it was almost moving, and why not?

 

do people watch the pianist or schindlers list to enjoy the crulety of man? no, most people dont. why cant games have this? recent advances in the gaming industry have revolutionised story telling. alot of games are becoming tragic, even poingient. to view gaming as a simply entertainment based medium is an outdated view, perhaps people should consider that extreeme violence in games is ment to elicit an emotional response, not necicarily joy.

 

 

Well that's kind of what I was getting at. Lets just say that in five years time, we have near-as-dammit photo realism and top draw animation to go with it. At this point, do you really want to be palying Modern Warfare 9 where headshots look like actual headshots? I can't see myself thinking 'man this shotgun is satisfying!' when it blows a guy in half in the most realistic way technonlogy allows it to.

My point is that by that point, and hopefully before, we can say gaming will have matured creatively enough to move past the fairly basic and absurd cycle of violence and mindless killing and use that technology to make it so that if we do kill people in games, it should be as shocking and effective as the violence in (good) films and books that give you a mature and deep emotional response.

[Rummy]

I think not playing videogames is harmful to our society. Would Jack the Ripper have been doing his ripping if he'd played more Xbox360? I think not. It's clear that a large majority of these famous murderers don't have an obsessive gaming addiction, and I think that's just the problem with it all, really.

 

NOT PLAYING VIDEO GAMES MAKES YOU A MENTALIST.

 

 

FACT.

[nightwolf]

Spend it on maths equations, or learn a new trade... You know, something towards helping your current condition in life or for the benefit of mankind.

 

Sorry its taken me so long to get back to this, I rarely remember that I post in threads like these because half the time I write something then never put it in because it doesn't seem to get my point across.

 

I genuinely believe I would have a miserable exsistance if I did math equations instead of playing games...why? Because I 'suck' at maths and frankly I'm in education already learning complex programming, modelling and animation. My current life is not defined by a game, or several, its not the be all and end all of my hobbies as I'm sure alot of people on here are the same.

 

I don't particularly thing if I can't do divisions without a calculator that I'll help man kind any other way than to make said video games that are being talked about already. HEH

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Well that's kind of what I was getting at. Lets just say that in five years time, we have near-as-dammit photo realism and top draw animation to go with it. At this point, do you really want to be palying Modern Warfare 9 where headshots look like actual headshots? I can't see myself thinking 'man this shotgun is satisfying!' when it blows a guy in half in the most realistic way technonlogy allows it to.

My point is that by that point, and hopefully before, we can say gaming will have matured creatively enough to move past the fairly basic and absurd cycle of violence and mindless killing and use that technology to make it so that if we do kill people in games, it should be as shocking and effective as the violence in (good) films and books that give you a mature and deep emotional response.

I have a feeling there would still be a market for it. Think SAW.

[Wesley]

Games are awful and do damage society.

 

I'm just trying to get into the gaming industry to kill the beast from within.

[Chris the great]

on sunday, the express ran an article claiming gaming was a terrible blight on young men, with no bennefits, no social side and is alienating us.

 

i honestly cringed. firstly, can you imagine a more social hobby then gaming? how many forums are there? how many clans? how many friends lend each outher games, chat about them, share tips, or get toghetr to play before a night out.

 

the woman writting said that videogames anrt even propper games like rugby, as they dont involve interaction with outher people. maybe 5 years ago she had a point but today? playign resi 5 with a mate was unbelivable. we organised plans, we had a banter, i got teased about ym accuracy, i teased my mate for seemingly attracting death, there were mad arguments in gun fights, hurried advice in close calls, and slightly awkward thank you's after truly awsome saves. if that isnt social, then what is?

 

as for sitting idoly, im sorry, but while you sit watching dross on the telly what am i doing? im actulay thinking. take a fairly standard first person shooter, typicaly, your looking for cover, keeping tabs on ammo, enemy numbers and rough positions, reacting to a changing environment and doing risk annalysis. this is in a typical scinario on typical game, while your watching the latest soap or reality tv farce, what are you doing? your watching, not even really thinking, your uninvovled, an observer.

 

 

studies have shown games to have better eyesight, quicker reactions, and in the case of surgeons, more accurate work. what does X factor offer the world? jedward. i think its clear who's entertainment is a waste of time here.

[RoadKill]

on sunday, the express ran an article claiming gaming was a terrible blight on young men, with no bennefits, no social side and is alienating us.

 

i honestly cringed. firstly, can you imagine a more social hobby then gaming? how many forums are there? how many clans? how many friends lend each outher games, chat about them, share tips, or get toghetr to play before a night out.

 

the woman writting said that videogames anrt even propper games like rugby, as they dont involve interaction with outher people. maybe 5 years ago she had a point but today? playign resi 5 with a mate was unbelivable. we organised plans, we had a banter, i got teased about ym accuracy, i teased my mate for seemingly attracting death, there were mad arguments in gun fights, hurried advice in close calls, and slightly awkward thank you's after truly awsome saves. if that isnt social, then what is?

 

as for sitting idoly, im sorry, but while you sit watching dross on the telly what am i doing? im actulay thinking. take a fairly standard first person shooter, typicaly, your looking for cover, keeping tabs on ammo, enemy numbers and rough positions, reacting to a changing environment and doing risk annalysis. this is in a typical scinario on typical game, while your watching the latest soap or reality tv farce, what are you doing? your watching, not even really thinking, your uninvovled, an observer.

 

 

studies have shown games to have better eyesight, quicker reactions, and in the case of surgeons, more accurate work. what does X factor offer the world? jedward. i think its clear who's entertainment is a waste of time here.

 

I really couldn't agree more. Absorbing bullshit TV is a genuine blight, and gaming really can be a whole lot more

[EEVILMURRAY]

Word.

 

 

Neighbours is a pr0 exception though.

[jayseven]

I wouldn't agree that gamers have better eyesight, though. Citation needed!

[Beast]

I wouldn't agree that gamers have better eyesight, though. Citation needed!

 

I kind of do. I notice things alot quicker than I used to and my reaction to things are alot faster now than they were before so I can see what christhegreat is saying.

 

But yeah, couldn't agree more Chris. Games are awesome, people against gaming are not.

[jayseven]

TV monitors generally don't rely on your peripheral vision (much), and are a fixed distance from your eyes. I don't see how this can 'improve' eyesight, unless our definition of eyesight involves/is limited to how fast you can move them!

[Fierce_LiNk]

TV monitors generally don't rely on your peripheral vision (much), and are a fixed distance from your eyes. I don't see how this can 'improve' eyesight, unless our definition of eyesight involves/is limited to how fast you can move them!

 

I agree with you, sucker. When I'm playing a game, I notice that sometimes I can spot things a lot quicker than others. However, in general, my eyesight is poor. I'm short sighted, and therefore can't even drive without my glasses.

 

So, I don't think gaming improves your sight, as such. But, I think it can help you become more "aware" of things that are on the screen. So, in terms of scanning, it might help.

[Raining_again]

TV monitors generally don't rely on your peripheral vision (much), and are a fixed distance from your eyes. I don't see how this can 'improve' eyesight, unless our definition of eyesight involves/is limited to how fast you can move them!

 

How can anyone think that games are good for your eyesight?! moving your eyes quickly and frequently (much like typing in an office) is very bad for your eyesight, tires your eyes and the unnatural light at obscene hours (we all know you do it) is very bad for your bodies time rhythm/body clock.

 

reflex improvement can be practised in other ways than games

 

and the biggie - RSI.

 

I'm not an anti gamer - I'm just not kidding myself that its not good for our bodies at all.

[Chris the great]

hum, i read the article on it recently, im afraid i cant rember were. in essence, people who played games were better able to spot a slightly darker shaded spot on a white screen (it may have been moving)

 

i belive it was attributed to our habitual spotting of patterns.

[nightwolf]

hum, i read the article on it recently, im afraid i cant rember were. in essence, people who played games were better able to spot a slightly darker shaded spot on a white screen (it may have been moving)

 

i belive it was attributed to our habitual spotting of patterns.

 

I seriously doubt that.

 

If anything my eyesight has gotten worse over the years, theres actually something behind your mother telling you you'll get square eyes.

 

Even common sense tells you that tv/screens make you headachy and tired because of the focusing your eyes has to do.

[Raining_again]

I seriously doubt that.

 

If anything my eyesight has gotten worse over the years, theres actually something behind your mother telling you you'll get square eyes.

 

Even common sense tells you that tv/screens make you headachy and tired because of the focusing your eyes has to do.

 

Yeah you need to look at distances or your eyes get extremely tired because of the focusing and constant movement. H&S suggests once every 20 minutes, go out for a minute and look 20m+ away from you, out of a window or whatever.

 

20 minutes, 20 seconds, 20 meters.

[ipaul]

on sunday, the express ran an article claiming gaming was a terrible blight on young men, with no bennefits, no social side and is alienating us.

 

i honestly cringed. firstly, can you imagine a more social hobby then gaming? how many forums are there? how many clans? how many friends lend each outher games, chat about them, share tips, or get toghetr to play before a night out.

 

the woman writting said that videogames anrt even propper games like rugby, as they dont involve interaction with outher people. maybe 5 years ago she had a point but today? playign resi 5 with a mate was unbelivable. we organised plans, we had a banter, i got teased about ym accuracy, i teased my mate for seemingly attracting death, there were mad arguments in gun fights, hurried advice in close calls, and slightly awkward thank you's after truly awsome saves. if that isnt social, then what is?

 

as for sitting idoly, im sorry, but while you sit watching dross on the telly what am i doing? im actulay thinking. take a fairly standard first person shooter, typicaly, your looking for cover, keeping tabs on ammo, enemy numbers and rough positions, reacting to a changing environment and doing risk annalysis. this is in a typical scinario on typical game, while your watching the latest soap or reality tv farce, what are you doing? your watching, not even really thinking, your uninvovled, an observer.

 

 

studies have shown games to have better eyesight, quicker reactions, and in the case of surgeons, more accurate work. what does X factor offer the world? jedward. i think its clear who's entertainment is a waste of time here.

 

A shitty conservative tabloid like the Express is always bound to attack video games. The Guardian, Independent or even the Times are always a lot more balanced when they write about them, The Guardian in particular with Charlie Brooker there. I think people generally know not to trust newspapers anyway, apart from their most loyal readers.

[Chris the great]

I seriously doubt that.

 

If anything my eyesight has gotten worse over the years, theres actually something behind your mother telling you you'll get square eyes.

 

Even common sense tells you that tv/screens make you headachy and tired because of the focusing your eyes has to do.

 

it wasnt necicarily more clear vision, just better at spotting said thing. also, the article didnt say how long was spent on aveage gaming by each person.

 

A shitty conservative tabloid like the Express is always bound to attack video games. The Guardian, Independent or even the Times are always a lot more balanced when they write about them, The Guardian in particular with Charlie Brooker there. I think people generally know not to trust newspapers anyway, apart from their most loyal readers.

 

true, it seems many papers are getting behind gaming now, but theres still a lot of negative press behind gaming.

[Mundi]

The whole eyesight thing, is not the better hand to eye co-ordination?

[Chris the great]

The whole eyesight thing, is not the better hand to eye co-ordination?

 

not according to said article, though i suppose thats a far better argument.

[Dan_Dare]

speaking of the press:

 

brewed up some musings on the old keyboard about MW2, controversy and the impact on creativity in the industry. It might be shit, so before I submit it to anyone that matters...

 

The controversy surrounding Modern Warfare 2 highlights the problems facing a young creative industry.

There’s a scene in the new Modern Warfare game that opens with a darkened screen and the sound of safety catches being released. As the images fade in, lift doors open and the player, armed with a heavy machine gun, takes part in a terrorist attack in a airport and is given the option to massacre swathes unarmed civilians in a scene deliberately evocative of the recent attacks in Mumbai.

The violence is indiscriminate, brutal and lingering. Rightly so, the scene is immensely shocking. I played through it with a growing sense of revulsion at my own actions that I have never felt before playing videogames- and I’ve been playing them since the early nineties. That’s more or less since I could pick up a controller.

The scene has created a now predictable storm of controversy on its release on TV, radio and in the papers. Given the 18+ age rating on the game, it should be easy to scoff at moral crusaders campaigning against the game, but I was sharply reminded of the issues involved when, playing the game online over X-Box Live, I was subjected to a frankly astonishing torrent of abuse from what must have been a pre pubescent boy of about 12 or 13.

Quite apart from my amazement that this kid, whose age was easily identified by a definite pre ball- dropping vocal pitch, knew the words he was using, I was conscious that I definitely wouldn’t want him experiencing the same violent content I had in the single player game but clearly his parents didn’t care or, more likely, simply didn’t know what the game was about. No child that age could walk in to a shop and buy Modern Warfare 2, but an adult who was buying it for him would have no trouble- And that’s the real problem: here. While developers like Infinity Ward are attempting to push the envelope and do new things with gaming for adults, public perception of the industry from parents, government and even its own specialist retailers like Game and Gamestation, remains stuck in the mid nineties when I was still tempted to chew on the SNES pads and Amiga 500 keyboard. Just this week, MP Keith Vaz attacked Modern Warfare 2 for damaging the impressionable minds of youngsters. Of course, Mr Vaz’s spectacular display of shit stirring ambulance chasing failed to take note of the game’s 18 rating and intended adult audience

This preconception is now comically out of date and has been since it was founded on the lunch-boxing promotional drives behind Mario and Sonic working their pixelated identities in to the public conscious, but it remains all the same- and it’s damaging the industry in a big way. If parents buy games like Modern Warfare 2 for their kids, if retailers continue to enable these ill educated shoppers as they do now and especially if the establishment continues to attack the industry for content clearly aimed at mature adults, then what chance does the industry have of maturing in the future? By belittling the industry, critics are simply enforcing negative stereotyping and making things worse, not better. Why, for example, would talented novelists and screenwriters be attracted to working in gaming when the industry is frequently demonised and portrayed as little better than pornography?

Sadly, the comparison is not entirely unsuitable. Like porn, videogame scripting is often merely an excuse to move from one set piece to another with little regard for logic or story. Even Modern warfare 2, with a Hollywood grade budget capable of ending third world debt, lacks the story craft to fully justify the inclusion of its most shocking scenes.

It’s a start though, and once society allows the videogame industry to move away from juvenile stereotypes by letting developers make mature content for mature gamers and keeping that material out of the hands of youngsters it was never intended to reach. Maybe then we can establish a creative platform for the industry on par with film and television and start making something really quite interesting.

[Daft]

No Russian was a stupid level. This is a snippet what I wrote about controversy in videogames in relation to it.

 

Now we come to the big controversy, the level ‘No Russian’. Wow, the very name sends shivers down my spine.

 

“Modern Warfare 2’s big attention-grabbing setpiece is a terrorist atrocity in an airport in which the player (taking the role of an undercover agent) reluctantly takes part. It’s upsetting, chilling and horrifying.

 

You’re supposed to be upset and chilled and horrified, of course – so on that level it succeeds.”

 

There are times when some games are horrifying, the whole second half of Resident Evil 5, for example. To quote Yahtzee’s succinct observation, ‘RE5 actually does a lot to defer that accusation [of racism]. Your partner is black (a bit), quite a few whiteys are scattered throughout the early hordes, and real effort has been put into a somewhat realistic and sympathetic depiction of modern Africa. And then… Halfway through the game, we suddenly find ourselves in a succession of mud hut villages fighting crowds of jabbering black people in loincloths and war paint, chucking spears. Oh, dears. Talk about sidestepping a pothole only to fall off a bridge.’

 

‘No Russian’ is not one of these horrifying moments simply because of how utterly absurd it is. Not only is it an unnecessary playable part of an already spasmodic plot that Infinity Ward and Activision obviously green lighted to drum up a storm, but the people you massacre are so inhuman. Point at any one of your team mates in the game and their name will be displayed quite clearly along with their rank. Enemies are afforded no such luxury; it’s an act of dehumanisation. Likewise these gunned down civilians are inhuman fodder. The only thing remotely human is their appearance but if you’ve just been killing your way through the Russian army all afternoon, what’s another couple hundred of no-names? ‘No Russian’ could have been horrifying. It could have been mature and done evocatively.

 

Even structurally it is removed. You step out of a lift into a room of people and kill them. It is a glorified shooting range. There is no build up or context. There is no tension, nothing is precious, nothing is lost. Have build up, give the people names, allow a context and you’ll have that controversial and, most importantly, thought-provoking level.

 

To be blunt, I think you have to be a bit of an idiot to see 'No Russian' as horrifying. Don't get me wrong, it's a stupid level for the reasons stated above, but it's just absurd.

[jayseven]

Crit, dan;

 

- and I’ve been playing them since the early nineties. That’s more or less since I could pick up a controller.

I think you should find another way to express your veteran status - perhaps rather than focusing on your own ga-ga age focus on the age of the medium itself, add a bit of hyperbole to exaggerate the point (like "- and I've been playing since pacman was on acid eating ghosts" or something. Emphasises your controller-chewing statement later).

 

shit-stirring ambulance-chasing, otherwise i'm picturing an ambulance chasing Failed while stirring some shit and taking notes. Maybe it's just me.

 

Your comparison of videogames to pornography is worthy of expanded attention, otherwise it kinda comes across as a fairly ludicrous statement to make.

 

Daft; I dislike your need to cling to a more reknowned critic to make your point, and I don't think that point particularly backs up what you're trying to say about dehumanisation and the absurd (maybe an element of the absurd :P)

 

Sorry for the unasked crit.

 

My centicles; on Dead Space I was stamping on the bodies of dead people in order to get a dismemberment achievement. I thought it was funny at first, then it started making me feel a little disturbed. But once you go full-blown disturbed then it's alright, because you're laughing like a maniac with a key to the straightjacket.

 

EDIT: tbf daft, you did say snippet. Sorry again!

[EEVILMURRAY]

I kind of do. I notice things alot quicker than I used to and my reaction to things are alot faster now than they were before so I can see what christhegreat is saying.

How has your eyesight come along though?

Point at any one of your team mates in the game and their name will be displayed quite clearly along with their rank. Enemies are afforded no such luxury; it’s an act of dehumanisation.

Are you saying it's wrong that your character doesn't know what name his enemy is?

 

Because unless every person in every war we've had knew each name and rank of the person s/he was shooting at, I fail to see what your point is.