Why Oh Why Are Games the Black Sheep of the Media Family?

Zillah

The gaming industry is like the unappreciated child in a family. The eldest son does something and it is amazing, but when the black sheep does it he gets shouted at and grounded.

This rant was inspired by this article. I'll be honest and say that few things get me as riled up as censorship, but when it is retarded and inconsistent censorship I feel like murdering someone (not inspired by violence in video games, by the way). Australia bans a computer game for having prostitution and pretty-much-weed in it, but a film can have rape, murder and genocide and this is fine, they just slap an 18+ label on it. A novel can go into grotesquely explicit atrocities of the most heinous and dispicable sort and there are no age limitations.

Also notice that their highest rating is 15+...so if something is not appropriate for 15 year olds then they make it illegal to sell, buy or promote the game in the country.

What the hell Australia, when did you go batshit crazy? What in the name of God is with this ludicrous over censorship of video games? Mass Effect lets you have a sex scene that is so tame a 12 year old wouldn't bat an eyelid and it's an international scandal. Is it just that games are new and confusing to the generation that are making these laws?

Sabre0001

It's a new medium...and it makes people afraid. As a result of players being interactive; i.e. it is as a result of the player's actions that someone dies - games get watched more closely.

However, I do not believe that games inspire violence or make us less repulsed by it.

To answer your closing question...yes.

AlmightyCushion

It'll be like this for a while. Over the top action movies got the same treatment as did rock/metal music. These were meant to lead to the downfall of society and cause our children to worship satan and sacrifice small puppies in his name. Something new will come along for people to fear and they'll forget all about computer games and the "harm" they do.

Offalycool

Our society is falling down.. but regardless.

The big problem with video games is in its interactivity. With music, you are either a consumer, or creator. The creator, if competent in their discipline, can improve their talent and develop valuable skills that will further their ability to sustain a fulfilling life. The interactive aspects of music can be a positive thing by and large. For the consumer, music is not (for the most part) an interactive experience, and so, it is less likely to dominate all your energy and inhibit your personal development in other areas of your life. Music on the other hand, I believe, has a profound influence on our societies overall, and few I believe would deny this.

In contrast, the skills developed by video game players are not much use to themselves, or anybody else. Because they are extremely interactive, much time and energy can, and is, funnelled by people into video games, especially the youth. Young people, who increasingly suffer from ADD and other syndromes, are developing their minds and bodies in front of the xbox, to the detriment of their future. Of course, it is understandable that parents can see the benefits of entertained and docile children in the evenings after a hard days work. I myself have enjoyed a game after a hard days work. However, I understand now, more than before, how my ability and potential is developed by what I do. If I spend my time playing video games, I am going to suffer as a consequence. I will not learn anything that will improve my life. Frankly, I spent a good deal of my time playing games, and most video games are uninspired rehashes of what has come before. At my age, its all a bit repetitive.

Zillah

Offalycool wrote: »

Our society is falling down.. but regardless.

The big problem with video games is in its interactivity. With music, you are either a consumer, or creator. The creator, if competent in their discipline, can improve their talent and develop valuable skills that will further their ability to sustain a fulfilling life. The interactive aspects of music can be a positive thing by and large. For the consumer, music is not (for the most part) an interactive experience, and so, it is less likely to dominate all your energy and inhibit your personal development in other areas of your life. Music on the other hand, I believe, has a profound influence on our societies overall, and few I believe would deny this.

In contrast, the skills developed by video game players are not much use to themselves, or anybody else. Because they are extremely interactive, much time and energy can, and is, funnelled by people into video games, especially the youth. Young people, who increasingly suffer from ADD and other syndromes, are developing their minds and bodies in front of the xbox, to the detriment of their future. Of course, it is understandable that parents can see the benefits of entertained and docile children in the evenings after a hard days work. I myself have enjoyed a game after a hard days work. However, I understand now, more than before, how my ability and potential is developed by what I do. If I spend my time playing video games, I am going to suffer as a consequence. I will not learn anything that will improve my life. Frankly, I spent a good deal of my time playing games, and most video games are uninspired rehashes of what has come before. At my age, its all a bit repetitive.

I bolded the bits relevant to the thread.

Offalycool

Fair enough, as far a censuring violence goes.. Without data supporting the claim that video game violence in particular leads to violent behaviour in people, censorship should not unduly target the video games industry.

Nevertheless, I believe the thread title "Why Oh Why Are Games the Black Sheep of the Media Family?" justified my point.

Jazzy

Offalycool wrote: »

Our society is falling down.. but regardless.

sh1t!!! is it?
oh bugger


there isnt a chance that people have been saying this since the dawn of historical records and it hasnt happened yet?
well i dunno, whatever Offalycool says about the fall of society im going to believe


anyhow...
i did write an article about this some time ago. ill have a dig around and see if i can find it tomorow

Offalycool

Well, its a popular point of view in trying times

Would like to read that article of yours though.

Agricola

Zillah wrote: »

Is it just that games are new and confusing to the generation that are making these laws?

Obviously.

The people who run these censorship boards are usually guys in their 50's or older. I imagine they are regarded as being of the required vintage to make good decisions on matters like this. Funnily enough, its exactly because of this that they are so out of touch with gaming culture, which leads to silly sh!t like this happening. Austrailia is a bermuda triangle when it comes to censorship anyway.

Im convinced it will all change in the next 20 years though. Gaming is no longer just a kids toy but is now a respectable form of entertainment. When the kids of the megadrive / playstation generation become the heads of these censorship boards, it will be a good day for all!

BlitzKrieg

Offalycool wrote: »

The big problem with video games is in its interactivity. With music, you are either a consumer, or creator. The creator, if competent in their discipline, can improve their talent and develop valuable skills that will further their ability to sustain a fulfilling life. The interactive aspects of music can be a positive thing by and large. For the consumer, music is not (for the most part) an interactive experience, and so, it is less likely to dominate all your energy and inhibit your personal development in other areas of your life. Music on the other hand, I believe, has a profound influence on our societies overall, and few I believe would deny this.

I think the contrast of consumer vs performer in video games/music is alot more complicated then you make it out to be. You associate the ability to perform music as an equivilent as someone who is good at a video game. But in a creative industry they are not the same aspect of the industry, one is consumer the other is performer, in all industries the consumer does not develop a vast array of talents. Just because someone buys alot of music and listens to it does not mean they will develope the ability to perform better, equally someone who plays alot of video games will not develop skills to create games. The consumer aspect of both is simply that, its for consumers. We consume, not produce. A small percentage of those who consume in all industries will embrace it so much that they will become producers.

Someone who can play an instrument or sing in harmony is a development of practical skills and the industry is the one that sells music books, instruments and other such aids. This is not the same industry that sells britney spears albums.

Equally the industry that sells programming software, graphic designing tools and software development kits are tooled speciifcally to someone who wants to develop pracitical skills in video game design. This is again not the same industry that sells Mario brothers. (though like some musicians, some game designers do encoruge the development of skills by releasing SDKs etc.)

You have grabbed one end of the spectrum of one industry and the other end of another industry, and compared them and concluded that because the consumer side of one does not present the same pracitical skills as the production side of the other it is therefore perceaved inferior.

Both industries, like television, literature, art and film have different sides to the industry. THe larger side in all of them is the consumer side and the products there are to entertain, inspire and evoke an emotional response. The other side of all of these industries is the sale of the tools and skills to become a producer. All of them have it. The video game industry is no different.

Offalycool

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

... Just because someone buys alot of music and listens to it does not mean they will develope the ability to perform better, equally someone who plays alot of video games will not develop skills to create games. The consumer aspect of both is simply that, its for consumers. We consume, not produce. A small percentage of those who consume in all industries will embrace it so much that they will become producers.

I agree. I am not claiming that the consumer of music or video games will improve worthwhile skills in the process. I am stating the opposite.

Someone who can play an instrument or sing in harmony is a development of practical skills and the industry is the one that sells music books, instruments and other such aids. This is not the same industry that sells britney spears albums.... Equally the industry that sells programming software, graphic designing tools and software development kits are tooled speciifcally to someone who wants to develop pracitical skills in video game design. This is again not the same industry that sells Mario brothers. (though like some musicians, some game designers do encoruge the development of skills by releasing SDKs etc.)

I agree.

You have grabbed one end of the spectrum of one industry and the other end of another industry, and compared them and concluded that because the consumer side of one does not present the same pracitical skills as the production side of the other it is therefore perceaved inferior.

I have. I guess I do not see much creativity in developing video games, nor is it as accessible to young people as picking up a musical instrument (the console is not open for would be young developers). It is true that (in my opinion) that you wont learn a musical instrument by playing with your HI FI (sorry DJ's).

Both industries, like television, literature, art and film have different sides to the industry. THe larger side in all of them is the consumer side and the products there are to entertain, inspire and evoke an emotional response. The other side of all of these industries is the sale of the tools and skills to become a producer. All of them have it. The video game industry is no different.

My point was to emphasise the degree of commitment video games require from consumers in comparison to other media. A film is two hours maybe, a song four minutes, people often play a video game for hours, sometimes days. I can listen to music all day whilst I do other things. I must walk away from the film when the credits role. The interactive demands of video games require me to commit all my energies and concentration to them. If I become addicted to video games, I will not be able to live as full a life as the music addict. The film addict may be closer to video games, but the lack of interactivity will lead the lover of film to moderate his intake.

Edit: I suppose the elephant in the room is T.V. But I think most people will agree that such an addiction is terminal.

BlitzKrieg

Offalycool wrote: »

I have. I guess I do not see much creativity in developing video games,

The same creative skills used in animation and filmmaking are used in the development of video games. Are you saying you dont see much creativity in the development of major motion pictures. And I'm not just talking about visual effects. Alot of the creative skills found in filmmaking resurface in game design. Equally game design shares an equal amount of core skills with the countless other programming based industries.

nor is it as accessible to young people as picking up a musical instrument

thats debatable. Its easy access for someone to learn to play the piano or harmonica or guitar and play basic melody. Just as it is easy access for someone to gain access to XNA or flash and build basic game designs.

Where it becomes more complicated is how far they want to take the skills. A musician might need to learn multiple instruments, learn to read and write music, use music editing software and the intricite details of their instruments to get the most out of them. That all requires time and as it becomes more complicated it becomes less accessable.

You are placing basic instrument knowledge on the same pedestal as say the development of grand theft auto. They are not. A more sensible comparison would be the selection of flash games online, or xna community games distributed on xbox live. Simple grasp of the basics.

My point was to emphasise the degree of commitment video games require from consumers in comparison to other media. A film is two hours maybe, a song four minutes, people often play a video game for hours, sometimes days.

Books and television? tv shows span a series of 26, 40 minute peisodes per season, the average successfull series would run for seven seasosns. Thats roughly 121 hours commitment to one full average tv series is five full days of commitment. A book is varied in length and can take one person a single evening to finish and another person could take a week. The difference between books and televsion and music and film, is their commitment thresehold. Video games falls much closer to the commitment thresehold of books and television, it is the consumer's choice how much they take in at a time, game development is designed around the idea that a player wont complete it in one session and genres have grown around the notion of how much commitment players are willing to give.

Music and Film are designed in their very presentation to be taken as a whole in one sitting. The rise of technology to pause and rewind has done more to damage these creative forces then to benefit them. THe existence of cinema's persist because they are the ideal enviroment for the design of film, control is out of the consumer's hands and its a single focused event over a 2 hour period.


When it comes to commitment as a comsumer its apples and oranges between music and video games.

I can load up sonic the hedgehog, play one level lasting 6 minutes, then turn off the game with intent to return later to play the next level. In those 6 minutes I would have gotten a full rounded satisfying experiance as a consumer, but I didnt taste the full experiance.

With music if I played only half of a track of queen's bohemian rhapsody, then paused it with intent to return later, I wouldnt be as satisfied, the experiance which was designed to be as a whole was broken up.

uglyjohn

This is one thing that really pisses me off. I firmly believe games should be strictly rated like films and the ratings enforced in shops. It seems like the obvious solution and i dont get why it isnt done. If games are rated properly so parents and retailers have faith in and can be confident that the raitings are appropriate i dont see how anyone could complain any more.

It should be far easier to enforce than ratings on films etc.

A system could easily be implimented where consoles/pcs only play PG/G/U/12+ (or whatever) in certain accounts or with a password. as it is if a child wants to watch a 18s film they just have to wait till the parents leave the house and just sneak the dvd out of dads bedside locker. With an intelligent rating system coded into the game and the console it would be very possible to make sure this sort of sh1te doesnt happen.

Kinetic^

15 or so years ago when I was in primary school it was television that was blamed for everything and now that something else has come along it's easier to blame the unknown. The generation that are rating games are those that never had the joy of playing video games when growing up. I think it's just the case that they don't know, or want to know, anything about it as it doesn't appeal to them.

Add in the fact that a very small % can't detach themselves from being in-game and these are the people that get talked about. Whereas the rest of use who enjoy a few hours a day/week have to live with the cloud hanging over us.

Sabre0001

I have to say that I disagree with you Offalycool. You seem to be focusing on a portion of gamers that do nothing else. Some people often play video games for hours or days on end - yes, that would be harmful...As would doing nothing but reading (that's a "one player game"), watching TV, or even playing music (know many failed bands?) or sports (injuries, lack of focus on things such as school, etc). Remember the people who watch Lord of the Rings back to back (how many hours is that?!) or people who watch the same film 27 times in the cinema. It's about balance...

Video games do not require commitment. They can be played in extremely short bursts or through marathon session. Play a song in rock band, a match in fifa, a checkpoint in other games. Doesn't take that long. Then if something is going on, as Blitzkreig said, you can pause or stop and walk away.

Games do actually have benefit (obviously if people participate correctly at times). Counter-Strike can teach the skills of communication, planning, teamwork and execution. It's closest comparison in real life would be quick Airsoft scenarios.

Harry Potter actor Daniel Radcliffe suffers from dyspraxia, a disorder involving difficulty with planning a physical sequence of coordinated movements. Because of dyspraxia, he has terrible handwriting he said, because "I can never quite tell when the pen is going to land on the page." But Radcliffe has credited video games for helping him deal with these coordination problems better now,

http://www.kombo.com/article.php?artid=12422

Microsoft have developed a system called Kodu which allows people to code simple game mechanics. It's cartoony nature would make it seem like it is targeted at kids but it is open to anyone, thus making coding at it's most basic seem simpler. When I was younger, and I'm sure they are still available, there were programs available to buy that you could drag and drop icons onto a 2D background. If something happened between the two it would ask you what should happen (e.g. ball has hit side of screen - ball disappears, point is given, life is lost, etc).


On a final note, music has been in the media attention too (mainly rock and metal) for violence, often in combination with video games. Interestingly Lady Gaga does not get attention for getting kids to sing along with lines such as "I wanna take a ride on your Disco stick" or songs about being drunk (Just Dance). I'm a big consumer of music but I'm not sure that it has a profound impact on my life...

Kiith

As others have said, its seems to be people who really dont know what they are talking about, painting Games with the same brush that Music/Tv/Films have been painted with in the past. There may be a small (very small) minority of people who will be negativly influenced by a game, but they would be just as influenced by other forms of media.

Its not the games fault, its their personality.

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Counter-Strike can teach the skills of communication, planning, teamwork and execution.

Not to mention tactical engagements strategies, small arms training, bomb diffusal, close combat training, and other useful info. What, you mean if i can hit someone in the head from 100 yards with the M4A1 in the game, that i wont be able to do it in real life? Surely though i can effectily fly a F22 Raptor in high speed dogfighting? No? But i thought i've been training for real life scenarios. I've wasted years of my life! :pac:

L31mr0d

Kiith wrote: »

What, you mean if i can hit someone in the head from 100 yards with the M4A1 in the game, that i wont be able to do it in real life?

Funny thing is the first rifle (and gun for that matter) that I ever fired was a .338 Winchester Magnum Hunting Rifle (just short of an elephant gun). We set up targets a few hundred metres away in a old quarry and with my first shot I hit the target dead centre.

The other guys there where expecting a miss, at which point they'd explain how to line up the sight, hold your breath while shooting... etc. But as far as I was concerned I had memory of shooting guns like it 100's of times before.

It was also obvious to spot the gamers and non-gamers when a bunch of us went paintballing. The guys who where used to the likes of Gears or CoD instantly started laying down covering fire when their team mates where moving, using blind fire, flanking, watching enemy movements, communicating with hand signals... etc.

pablomakaveli

I was watching a great show the other night on BBC3 that took a tongue in cheek look at gaming. One point they made that was in the 90's games became more marketed at kids and thus the stereotype that only kid's play games became common for most people. So whenever a violent game came out the people who believed the stereotype assumed that the game was made to be played by kids and there would be uproar.

They also pointed out on the show that the kids that the reporters interviewed in their reports about violent games did'nt help the situation either when they would say things like "I like playing fighting games coz it's fun when you can punch and kick the guy in the head".

I think it's going to become less of a problem because i'd say just as many adults if not more than kids are playing games these days and the old biddys who would complain will start dying out in the coming years leaving a generation of adults who have grown up playing games and know they are harmless.

As for Australia they seem to go OTT when it comes to censoring games.

Jazzy

ive started strafe jumping everywhere nowadays. im also taking middle lane today and am going for a tank build. i think i play too much.

anyway, heres that article. it was written back in 2005 and features comments from Jermaine Williams / Jazz who used to run Gamecon. not sure about the editing of it or anything

Unfair Games

An Insight into violence in computer games and the medias treatment of the subject.


Violence in computer games and its effects is nothing new to the world. Stories of children imitating these violent games and resulting in death have shocked the world. As recently as March 2005 we saw the shooting and subsequent death of two people by a minor in the United States being blamed on computer games. The game in question is part of the now infamous Grand Theft Auto series. The massacre that took place in Columbine High school, Colorado, was at first blamed on violent computer games. The more recent shootings has caused Hilary Clinton, the woman many perceive to be the next Democratic Party candidate for the presidency, to comment that these games are a "major threat" to morality. She wants President George W. Bush and Congress to launch a $US90 million investigation of the impact of electronic media on children's "cognitive, social, emotional and physical development".

The question is, is all this necessary? The fact is that these violent games do carry an 18’s certificate. Computer game retailers cannot sell these games to minors. It is much the same way in which a cinema will not allow people below the age rating to see an 18’s film. Films such as Reservoir Dogs and The Grudge aren’t brought into question when there are these tragedies of child shootings but games are. Is this fair?

In an interview with Jermaine Williams, who is the main organizer of Ireland’s biggest gaming event, Gamecon and a leading figure in Ireland’s gaming scene, he brings the point that the media still believes that these games are aimed purely at children. The evidence to support this is quite clear as the media as a whole has failed to take gaming seriously, especially here in Ireland. Our biggest selling magazine, the RTE Guide, ran a feature supplement at Christmas time reviewing and discussing games. It was a most irresponsible supplement aimed directly at children and full of half attempted reviews with extremely poor criticism. Of course this article was aimed squarely at children. The media outlet, in this case RTE, failed to realize that per capita Ireland is the most successful country in Europe for console manufacturers and games companies and that the average age of gamers in this country is in the fifteen to twenty-one year old bracket. This is a pattern followed by most media outlets. Thinking still that computer games are only being played by children and by anorak wearing teenagers with no social life. How are we to expect fair and just reporting by the mass media on computer game violence?

The attention given to computer games and its subsequent demonizing as an art form is worrying. Jermaine Williams describes “A complete lack of understanding of the medium by the media”. The fact is that the only time the media takes notice of computer games is in a reactionary fashion due to an injury, death or massacre. Jermaine goes on to say how the media has failed to notice that the main market for console games is the late teen, early twenties age group. If you look at the marketing strategy of both Microsoft and Sony for their upcoming new consoles, the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 respectively, it is aimed primarily at this age bracket. People who are eighteen and above can drink alcohol, drive cars and watch violent films, so why shouldn’t they be given the choice to play games of an adult nature and be treated as normal?

Parents of minors seem far more quick to blame the companies that produce these games instead of taking responsibility themselves over what their children are exposed to. Would a responsible parent let their twelve year old watch a film like Pulp Fiction or drink alcohol? We shouldn’t think so. Yet they seem to consider it okay to buy a computer game that is clearly labeled 18’s, let their child play it and then become shocked when they find out the content of the game. Parents need to become aware of the content of some games and what their child is being exposed to. Jermaine Williams says of this, “Games should be treated by parents in the same way as they would treat a film”. At the Gamecon event Jermaine runs he warns parents of minors that games of adult content will be played at the event and if the parents do not want their child to be exposed to this, don’t let them go. He makes all available efforts to make fully aware to parents and indeed the regular attendees of the content at the event.

Ultimately the question remains, is the parents lack of awareness and reactionary views the fault of the media? From the evidence we should believe it is. The media is only now beginning to realize how big a market computer games have become. The market is now a bigger profit maker then the movie industry. Half of Sony’s profits come from its Playstation brand and Sony is amongst the top ten largest companies in the world. Jermaine believes that some sort of campaign mounted by games companies promoting awareness to adults and parents would be a viable move. As is parents can only consult the horror stories they hear in the media, so a move to this campaign by the companies can only help their image in front of a slowly converting mass media. Ultimately, the media needs to pay attention and take gaming seriously. A failure to understand how big the industry is becoming could lead to a further poor understanding of the games industry and lack of awareness.

johnny_ultimate

I think it is a mix of an alarmist media and the general uncomfortable 'newness' of gaming to the general public. The problem is that a lot of the time the only mainstream media coverage games get is when a new ultra violent game appears (and there are a lot of them, gaming being a relatively immature pursuit on occasion). This is obviously going to give games a bad reputation amongst non-gamers - pretty much anything they ever hear about games is bad.

And naturally they never hear about the finest examples of gaming art. Your typical non-gamer will stare blankly if you toss names such as ICO, Braid or countless others into the argument. It is a little like the way plenty of people bemoan the dull Hollywood drek that populates multiplexes. Suggest they visit the local arthouse cinema and odds are many won't know it even it exists. These things simply do not get advertised or mentioned in the general, non-specialised media, so how are people meant to find out about them unless they seek it out themselves?

Interestingly, two examples in the last week show that the pattern might be changing. One was Charlie Brooker's Gameswipe on BBC4, which was a more balanced look at the history of gaming (even if it did focus on violence for a lot of the running time!). Also over in America the glorious Tim Schafer appeared sans Jack Black on Jimmy Fallon. Interesting to note what Fallon says about treating game launches like film launches. It sets a promising precedent, and hopefully as a younger generation emerges as the dominant television personalities, games will be better integrated into the media, where passion for the medium will replace ill-judged backlashes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF0YETfrp-M

L31mr0d

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Interestingly, two examples in the last week show that the pattern might be changing.

I think the reason for this is the same as the reason why TV is accepted now. It would seem odd to go into someones house and for them not to have a TV, and I'm sure our children will grow up in a world where it is odd to walk into a house and not have a gaming device.

What we are starting to see happen now is that the people that are getting into a position to affect public opinion are people who grew up around games so they naturally have a greater understanding of them. They understand that "videogames" is not just 1 genre, and that there are ones for kids and ones for adults.

Oddly I see the same stereotype, in the West, regarding Anime. Some of that stuff should NOT be viewed by children (not even the H stuff, I'm talking about the graphically violent stuff) I know a kid stateside who must be about 13 and was talking to me about Elfin Lied in front of his mother, she knew about it and said something like "Oh, that cartoon, I'm sure you don't watch that" ... I was gobsmacked, clearly she had seen a calm scene from the Anime that her son was watching, but the majority of it is for adults.

...and this is, imo, the main problem with both these mediums, the ignorance of the parents. Video games and Anime are no different to Music and TV, it is up to the parents to educate themselves about these new forms of media so that they can form reasoned opinions on which ones they should allow and avoid giving to their children. What we see happening at the moment is that a lot of parents are either too nonchalant or blindly ignorant of these mediums. They either blanket ban everything from Manhunt to Mario or give their children Carte Blanche to decide for themselves what they will play and watch.

pablomakaveli

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Interestingly, two examples in the last week show that the pattern might be changing. One was Charlie Brooker's Gameswipe on BBC4, which was a more balanced look at the history of gaming (even if it did focus on violence for a lot of the running time!). Also over in America the glorious Tim Schafer appeared sans Jack Black on Jimmy Fallon. Interesting to note what Fallon says about treating game launches like film launches. It sets a promising precedent, and hopefully as a younger generation emerges as the dominant television personalities, games will be better integrated into the media, where passion for the medium will replace ill-judged backlashes.

Thats the show i was on about in my earlier post.;) I could'nt remember the name of it.

pablomakaveli

The thing is the over-sensationalism of the media probably only makes matters worse in terms of kids wanting to buy adult games. Manhunt for example was considered a mediocore game by many and probably would'nt have sold that well if it were'nt for the media reporting on how violent it was.

Though i think the laziness and stupidity of a lot of parents are to blame when a child gets their hands on an adult game.

So basically the parents and media who demonize games are probably deserve most of the blame for kids playing adult games.

Sabre0001

Kiith wrote: »

Not to mention tactical engagements strategies, small arms training, bomb diffusal, close combat training, and other useful info. What, you mean if i can hit someone in the head from 100 yards with the M4A1 in the game, that i wont be able to do it in real life? Surely though i can effectily fly a F22 Raptor in high speed dogfighting? No? But i thought i've been training for real life scenarios. I've wasted years of my life! :pac:

Care to explain where I said that? Teamwork - check - you work in a 5v5 setting as a team. Communication - check - teams use Vent and headsets (or in other settings, simply talk / scream at each other). Strategies - check - at high level play, CS is all about tactics and knowing the hotspots of a map.

These are practical skills that you can practice and learn from playing a game. I would not advise trying to rocket jump, wallbash (as one Nascar driver tried) or many other things that you see in game - bad for your health

Kiith

L31mr0d wrote: »

Funny thing is the first rifle (and gun for that matter) that I ever fired was a .338 Winchester Magnum Hunting Rifle (just short of an elephant gun). We set up targets a few hundred metres away in a old quarry and with my first shot I hit the target dead centre.

I had a similar experience, when i went clay pigeon shooting on a team building day in work a few years back. Managed to hit 11 out of 12 targets, having never fired a gun before. I suppose i did understand the theory of how to fire the gun before i actually fired it. Dont know if that was from games or films or wherever, but it was pretty easy.

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Care to explain where I said that?

I wasnt actually having a go at what you were saying. I agree with most of what you said, i just wish the media was right and that games could train me in the things that i said. I think i'd make an excellent F22 Raptor pilot

Lame Lantern

Theatre was seen as inferior until the nineteenth century, prose was seen as inferior until the early twentieth century, cinema was seen as inferior until the 1970s. These declarations are never correct and they never last. Just wait until our generation become the unintelligent, belligerent critics in newspapers telling people what to think. Then we're golden.

Zillah

L31mr0d wrote: »

It was also obvious to spot the gamers and non-gamers when a bunch of us went paintballing. The guys who where used to the likes of Gears or CoD instantly started laying down covering fire when their team mates where moving, using blind fire, flanking, watching enemy movements, communicating with hand signals... etc.

This is both hilarious and awesome. I really hope you're not exaggerating.

Jazzy

even the novel was considered trashy when it first appeared

Offalycool

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The same creative skills used in animation and filmmaking are used in the development of video games. Are you saying you dont see much creativity in the development of major motion pictures. And I'm not just talking about visual effects. Alot of the creative skills found in filmmaking resurface in game design. Equally game design shares an equal amount of core skills with the countless other programming based industries.

To be honest, I don't see mush creativity in modern cinema. More visual effect, yes, but this seems to me to be more refined versions of the same stuff we have had before. I believe big media companies are not inclined to take risks, and Joe Public kinda likes it that way.

thats debatable. Its easy access for someone to learn to play the piano or harmonica or guitar and play basic melody. Just as it is easy access for someone to gain access to XNA or flash and build basic game designs.

Perhaps. Regardless of the accessibility of the different media, There is more scope for variety in music than video games. There are a wide range of instruments, there are a few software development packages. You can use a variety of organs and limbs to produce music, video games hare limited technical user interfaces. The music can fill an entire room full of people, the game fills a screen in the corner.

Where it becomes more complicated is how far they want to take the skills. A musician might need to learn multiple instruments, learn to read and write music, use music editing software and the intricite details of their instruments to get the most out of them. That all requires time and as it becomes more complicated it becomes less accessable.

True. As excellence goes, to create anything worthwhile require commitment. More people seem to create music than video games though. Perhaps this is proportionate to the volume of music lovers vs video game lovers.

You are placing basic instrument knowledge on the same pedestal as say the development of grand theft auto. They are not. A more sensible comparison would be the selection of flash games online, or xna community games distributed on xbox live. Simple grasp of the basics.

Perhaps I am, but I am more interested in addressing my argument about commitment.

Books and television? tv shows span a series of 26, 40 minute peisodes per season, the average successfull series would run for seven seasosns. Thats roughly 121 hours commitment to one full average tv series is five full days of commitment.

I think I made my views on T.V. addiction clear.

A book is varied in length and can take one person a single evening to finish and another person could take a week. The difference between books and televsion and music and film, is their commitment thresehold.

Yes, from a commitment point of view both media require plenty.

Video games falls much closer to the commitment thresehold of books and television, it is the consumer's choice how much they take in at a time, game development is designed around the idea that a player wont complete it in one session and genres have grown around the notion of how much commitment players are willing to give.

Reading books can be a waste of time. However, reading good books is a very worthwhile pastime, and contributes enormously to personal development. Granted, reading too much is bad, but that's the fine line.

Music and Film are designed in their very presentation to be taken as a whole in one sitting. The rise of technology to pause and rewind has done more to damage these creative forces then to benefit them. THe existence of cinema's persist because they are the ideal enviroment for the design of film, control is out of the consumer's hands and its a single focused event over a 2 hour period.

Yes. Everyone has to relax, and media of all types can be good in this respects. But last time I played a game I could load and save, and I could pause also.

When it comes to commitment as a comsumer its apples and oranges between music and video games.

I can load up sonic the hedgehog, play one level lasting 6 minutes, then turn off the game with intent to return later to play the next level. In those 6 minutes I would have gotten a full rounded satisfying experiance as a consumer, but I didnt taste the full experiance.

With music if I played only half of a track of queen's bohemian rhapsody, then paused it with intent to return later, I wouldnt be as satisfied, the experiance which was designed to be as a whole was broken up.

Video games are designed to be long and attention seeking. You say yourself: to not finish a good game is unsatisfactory. By playing the game, this media has ensnared you in a commitment to get "value for money". The game itself may be some what entertaining, but fundamental, you have probably played a very similar game before. It may have nicer graphics, or unique features (that may slightly change the game dynamics), but ultimately, 15 to 30 hours later its over, and nothing has been gained for that time. If one has invested in expensive hardware in order to play the game, our "value for money" instinct persuades us to seek out more entertaining experiences, with even shinier graphics and slightly different mechanics. 15 to 30 hours later we have been left looking for more minute changes to demonstrate that we have indeed received value for money. If I spend so much time interacting with a machine, I may begin to forget how to socialise in a healthy fashion. I may eventually withdraw from social events to a more comfortable environment, where I feel I am in control. I may convince myself that I interact with people socially over the internet, but I have lost much of my ability to communicate in this realm. Body language is irrelevant to the point where an interpretation of what's posted can hinge on a smiley or grin icon.

All this time adds up, and what have we learned?

Kinetic^

Offalycool wrote: »

and what have we learned?

That the small % of people that do this are giving the rest of us a bad name.

Vegeta

L31mr0d wrote: »

Funny thing is the first rifle (and gun for that matter) that I ever fired was a .338 Winchester Magnum Hunting Rifle (just short of an elephant gun). We set up targets a few hundred metres away in a old quarry and with my first shot I hit the target dead centre.

The other guys there where expecting a miss, at which point they'd explain how to line up the sight, hold your breath while shooting... etc. But as far as I was concerned I had memory of shooting guns like it 100's of times before.

Kiith wrote: »

I had a similar experience, when i went clay pigeon shooting on a team building day in work a few years back. Managed to hit 11 out of 12 targets, having never fired a gun before. I suppose i did understand the theory of how to fire the gun before i actually fired it. Dont know if that was from games or films or wherever, but it was pretty easy.

Lads as someone who does a lot of shooting and playing computer games I genuinely doubt that it was the games.

What do they teach you after all? When the gun is on target or you have a proper sight picture to pull the trigger, that's about as far as it goes really and that's 100% good old fashioned common sense. It teaches you nothing of the physical aspects of shooting.

Sounds more like you both have natural talent for it.

Did games teach you trigger control? How to manage recoil, check eye dominance, how to mount a gun correctly, correct standing, kneeling or prone positions, how much lead to give a clay, the bullet drop on the rifle at the distance you were shooting.

Fundamentally shooting is very simple, point the long metal thing in the right direction and pull the trigger at the correct time. Nothing in a video game exercises the physical components of your body needed for successful shooting though.

Would playing Fight Night make you good at boxing?

I'd put your success down to the following, natural talent (you must have decent hand eye co-ordination anyway if you are decent at games) and instruction on the day.

Kiith

So i learned nothing from Duck Hunt? :eek:

Vegeta

Kiith wrote: »

So i learned nothing from Duck Hunt? :eek:

There are lots of valuable lessons to be learned in duck hunt, it can be a cold, cruel sport where often your dog acts the cnut

Bubs101

In terms of the ratings and why the Aussies banned those games, there is definitely an element of ease for kids to get hold of these. I remember as a kid watching South Park or trying to rent the movie had a bunch of obstacles like parents and vigilant Xtravision staff but when I wanted Chef's Luv Shack, South Park 64, GTA 2 and 3 etc. it was piss easy for whatever reason. Nobody care's about the certification on games, they do care about those on films for some reason though.

Jumpy

L31mr0d wrote: »

The guys who where used to the likes of Gears or CoD instantly started laying down covering fire when their team mates where moving, using blind fire, flanking, watching enemy movements, communicating with hand signals... etc.

I can usually tell a GoW player when they try to chainsaw me with the front of the gun while making brrrrrrr noises.

Jazzy

i can almost do a hadoken. another week id say and ill have it.
ive got my tiger uppercuts down to a tee though

L31mr0d

Jumpy wrote: »

I can usually tell a GoW player when they try to chainsaw me with the front of the gun while making brrrrrrr noises.

Yeah it's even easier to spot the Halo players, they where the ones that would run out of cover and over to me when I was lying prone and start tea bagging the back of my head.

Vegeta wrote: »

Did games teach you trigger control? How to manage recoil, check eye dominance, how to mount a gun correctly, correct standing, kneeling or prone positions, how much lead to give a clay, the bullet drop on the rifle at the distance you were shooting.

I know you say it's "common sense", but I don't think everyone will know the fundamentals before ever shooting a gun as much as someone whos had to get used to them in FPS's. It might not teach you the physical aspects such as how to handle recoil, but it does teach you to expect it. From playing games and having never fired a lot of weapons, nor seen them I could tell how much recoil to expect from them merely from having to adjust how I used those weapons in games. It also teaches you how much lead to give a clay, bullet drop and the benefits of different stances... etc

Cunny-Funt

Vegeta wrote: »

how much lead to give a clay, the bullet drop on the rifle at the distance you were shooting.

Actually these are things I've learned from games alright. As someone who's never fired a gun in my life, I can pretty much say my chances of hitting a moving target are far better due to me being a gamer, then they would be if I;d never played any games ever.

But to answer the op, theres still a hell of a lot of ignorance out there regarding 'video games' and most people still view as something only for kids. These people are idiots imo, old fashioned and simply ignorant. Its only a matter of time before people will look back and laugh at the idea that once people thought gaming was something only for kids and was looked down apon as a form of entertainment. Modern gamers are just a head of the curve.

15ish years ago people thought communicating with other people on the 'internet' was only for geeks and the action was looked down on, go back even further and the same attitude was around for those who even used a computer. Ignorance and small mindedness. Pure and simple.

5uspect

I have to agree it's down to pure ignorance.

Most commentators have never played "these games".
Hillary Clinton blabbing on about getting points for killing cops in GTA for example.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/now-clinton-jumps-on-the-violent-videogames-bandwagon

Also, remember this?
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/are_violent_video_games

Kids and games once again!

Vegeta

L31mr0d wrote: »

I know you say it's "common sense", but I don't think everyone will know the fundamentals before ever shooting a gun as much as someone whos had to get used to them in FPS's.

Yes but an FPS is an extremely poor simulation for shooting so the aspects portrayed in game are so basic that anyone with a smidgen of intelligence or who has seen saving private ryan probably knows as much.

Such as,
Holding your breath makes you more stable, imagine who'd have thought. (Still I cant remember a game which specifically points out that you hold the breath on the exhale not the inhale)
Lying down is a more stable platform than standing, witch craft this is. (Still doesn't tell you how to position your limbs to avoid them swaying, doesn't tell you that felt recoil is worst in this position)
Moving and shooting is more inaccurate than stationary, again its not exactly a leap.
Guns have recoil

It might not teach you the physical aspects such as how to handle recoil, but it does teach you to expect it. From playing games and having never fired a lot of weapons, nor seen them I could tell how much recoil to expect from them merely from having to adjust how I used those weapons in games.

The whole point here is that you believe FPS games make people better shots but who thinks guns are without recoil? Sure games show recoil in action but every dog in the street knows a shot firearm recoils so a commoner and an FPS shooter are on level pegging here BUT assuming I'm wrong and by some miracle people forget that guns recoil what advantage will that give you in terms of accurate shooting?

From gaming you now know that guns recoil at different rates. How are you going to use that piece of information to your advantage?

[/quote]It also teaches you how much lead to give a clay[/quote]

I am trying to phrase this as non hostile as possible but this is just wrong. Unless of course the FPS you are talking about is Clay Simulator 2010 .

Knowing moving objects require lead and knowing how much lead to give a clay pigeon are worlds apart. If it were as easy as playing a few games to get it right then I'd be amazing at clay shooting.

bullet drop

So tell me what was the last game you played that answered questions like the following, for a 100 yard zero using a .308 169 grain round, how many elevation MOA would you need to adjust by for a 400 yard shot down hill at say an angle of 30 degrees?

Conveniently most FPS games I have played do not have any bullet drop bar maybe the odd secondary weapon like a grenade launcher. It seems sniper rifles perform more like lasers in most titles.

and the benefits of different stances... etc

As mentioned above that's pretty common knowledge.

Look FPS games expose you to some very basic fundamentals of shooting, a lot of which, if not all, are known by the average person.

They don't even tackle the most difficult aspect of shooting a rifle ffs, wind.

Vegeta

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

Actually these are things I've learned from games alright. As someone who's never fired a gun in my life, I can pretty much say my chances of hitting a moving target are far better due to me being a gamer, then they would be if I;d never played any games ever.

And I'm telling you that you are grossly over estimating the level of simulation in games.

Any sporty person or someone with decent hand eye co-ordination would wipe the floor with a brilliant gamer who was gracefully challenged

5uspect

When CoD 5 was released Activision had a launch promo that saw a group of "Geeks" play actual Marines, using Xbox controllers. (oh noes!)
Ultimately the Geeks did quite well while the Marines worked better as a team.
So if anything teamwork tactics may be transfered both ways.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5han3mL1pHsJPaTN2G13sw5Wul-ZA?index=0

As regards affecting gun handling ability, I think, you may as well give them water guns and send them around a paintball course. That mechanic is at least much the same.

L31mr0d

Vegeta wrote: »

Look FPS games expose you to some very basic fundamentals of shooting, a lot of which, if not all, are known by the average person.

Ok well you keep coming back to your subjective opinion that everyone knows everything about guns that someone who plays FPS's does. I disagree with this and think that gun knowledge amongst your average person who has never seen nor fired a gun is not equal to that of someone who has used simulated versions of them in games.

I am not saying that I could shoot equally as good as a professional or know all that fancy book learnin' about bullet drop, rather my base knowledge of how to use guns from the get go is higher than an average persons.

In fact when we where out shooting the Winchester Magnum 2 of the other guys there had the sight hit them square between the eyes as they didn't know how to brace the butt of the gun.

The argument is moot though, as it rests solely on your assumption about the average non-gamers knowledge of guns.

Also, not everyone knows about recoil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfGUF8T-dUM

cherryghost

Person: You're playing waaaaay too much games, think you should take a break.

Response: Oh yeah, well you watch TV for hours on end with little or no effort to challenge yourself.



Does anyone get the first response? I mean, why is it an issue? Because its new. People need to adjust to new mediums. Remember the days that TV turned your eyes square. Never hear that anymore, do ya?

As for media coverage is to go by, part of the coldness, in my opinion, is fear. Fear of a more advantageous and communicative medium that has fast risen above the horizen in recent years? GTA IV, hookers blah blah blah blah. Hostel 2, getting his balls chopped off, then eaten. I dont think theres much of a debate over it, but the television and paper media beg to differ.

The media industry has to cop on and grow the fupp up. Theres a new media king in town, and they have to adjust to the changing landscape, not ridicule it.

Nevyn

Media don't want people to think that gaming is acceptable, they want to keep people watching TV.

NeoKubrick

Jazzy wrote: »

i can almost do a hadoken. another week id say and ill have it.
ive got my tiger uppercuts down to a tee though

I've told my brother that I will one day land a shoryuken on him and that he'd better be ready to block high. He's seven, though. I may whiff it.


Gaming is currently the black sheep of the media family, because it is a relatively new medium and is now a financial juggernaut. There can be only so much money available for entertainment industries to exist on, and now Gaming takes a large share of that and it has put a squeeze on other industries and their jobs. That's just a natural progression, and if anything, it's probably a good indicator for the success of the medium. Most of the media criticizing Gaming will have no interest in it or profit from it, and it probably is against their own interests to not criticize it.

Censorship & in-game violence is an easy ground on which to criticize games, because it's such a reassuring and self-serving thought to think that it's someone else's fault. In fact, the argument for censorship and bans is so infatuating that intelligent gamers regularly accept it, even now in this thread. I remember going against five, what I considered pillars of the community, intelligent members because they agreed with censorship and I was so astounding by their ignorance, I didn't even bother to counter their arguments after my first reply (interesting discussion: here. The argument is ridiculous, of course. To accept it is to accept that alcohol is the cause of bad behaviour: alcohol isn't a cause; it's inanimate. People are the cause of behaviour, and use inanimate objects as an outlet for their expressions, and how destructive or non- that expression is, is as a result of the person's personality.

Participation in Gaming is the exact same as other mediums: it's just that there are different factors to be considered. This is a part of the pro-censorship argument that violence in Gaming is worse than violence in Film, because the gamers participates in the violence and the viewer doesn't. It's a fallacy. In Irréversible, there is a long shot of a visceral rape scene. Neither I nor most viewers can stomach watching the scene the first time (and I skip it anytime I go back to watch the film), because viewers participate in a film and viewers identify with characters. In that scene, the viewer can only participate as the rapist or the person being raped, and naturally and healthily, most viewers identify with the person being raped and are therefore disgusted by scene and it's hard to watch. Noe's direction even toys with the viewer by introducing a stranger who stumbles upon the rape, and the viewer immediately thinks that they can now participate in the film as the 'Hero', the person who stops or kills the rapist and saves the woman. The stranger walks away, and the viewer has now participated as a coward and a person being raped, and this is what makes the scene hard to watch. Participation is required with any medium.

Zillah

L31mr0d wrote: »

Also, not everyone knows about recoil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfGUF8T-dUM

What the hell was that gun in the second half? A lot of those guys looked like they knew what they were doing and still got thrown around.

Cunny-Funt

L31mr0d made all the points I was going to make anyway so I'll just say:

Vegeta wrote: »

And I'm telling you that you are grossly over estimating the level of simulation in games.

Any sporty person or someone with decent hand eye co-ordination would wipe the floor with a brilliant gamer who was gracefully challenged

All I'm saying is, compared to myself, without ever playing any game, versus me with my experience with military sims and so forth. The gamer me would have far higher a chance of hitting a moving target over the non gamer me.

The concept of bullet leading, is something I learned from games. How to use a scope and so forth also. I'm not saying I'd be a marksman, I'm just saying my chances of hitting the target would be higher. I dunno how you can argue with that point.

Sabre0001

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

All I'm saying is, compared to myself, without ever playing any game, versus me with my experience with military sims and so forth. The gamer me would have far higher a chance of hitting a moving target over the non gamer me.

The concept of bullet leading, is something I learned from games. How to use a scope and so forth also. I'm not saying I'd be a marksman, I'm just saying my chances of hitting the target would be higher. I dunno how you can argue with that point.

See I'm not sure. As kids, we can hit moving targets with footballs (cars, other kids, etc) and that's not through playing games - you can see the examples of having to lead targets in other elements...that or it's just natural kid cruelty that makes it instinctive!

5uspect

Zillah wrote: »

What the hell was that gun in the second half? A lot of those guys looked like they knew what they were doing and still got thrown around.

It's a BFG.

Vegeta

L31mr0d wrote: »

Ok well you keep coming back to your subjective opinion that everyone knows everything about guns that someone who plays FPS's does. I disagree with this and think that gun knowledge amongst your average person who has never seen nor fired a gun is not equal to that of someone who has used simulated versions of them in games.

I am not saying that I could shoot equally as good as a professional or know all that fancy book learnin' about bullet drop, rather my base knowledge of how to use guns from the get go is higher than an average persons.

Your initial point was that because you had played games you'd be a better shot than someone who hadn't. I am strongly disagreeing with that based on first hand experience of bringing both gaming and non gaming friends shooting with me.

I am not saying you wouldn't have more knowledge about guns (different from knowledge on how to shoot) such as what certain guns look like, what guns different armies use. The supposed "power" of certain guns. Magazine capacities etc

In fact when we where out shooting the Winchester Magnum 2 of the other guys there had the sight hit them square between the eyes as they didn't know how to brace the butt of the gun.

Just a pointer in case you are shooting big calibres again. The important factor for "scope eye" is inadequate eye relief. Even if the gun is braced perfectly but you don't give the proper amount of eye relief you will get stung. Have done it myself with a .270 and a cheap **** scope on too high a magnification (eye relief reduces with magnification). Of course if you don't brace the gun AND use crap eye relief then you are going to get thumped (like the girl kneeling in the grey hoody in the video below, bad idea to keel too if you're worried about recoil as you are less able to soak it up, as said earlier its even worse in prone).

The argument is moot though, as it rests solely on your assumption about the average non-gamers knowledge of guns.

Also, not everyone knows about recoil

You are not seeing my point at all

My initial point is that games teach little about technique that isn't common knowledge.

But lets say I concede that point for the sake of argument.

My main point is knowing the theory of something and the physical ability to do it are miles and miles apart. Do you accept this?

That video highlights my point perfectly actually, practically all of them had horrible technique, stance (weight distribution) grip and so on. Please tell me a game that has outlined for you how to do any of those things? I cant think of any games that do.

Everyone in that video could have known about recoil and been expecting it but because they don't know how to prepare for it they get hurt. (The people shooting one handed are asking for trouble and being completely reckless so I'll exclude them from any reasonable conversation) But again my point is just because you know about something does not mean you know anything about how to deal with it.

For example when shooting shotguns especially clay shooting about 70% of your weight is on your leading foot, your trailing leg acting as a shock absorber and counter balance. I have never seen a game mention this, I know it through experience and tuition.

The people shooting the 700 nitro express or whatever it is seem to be experienced (they obviously work at a facility firing guns) and yet they still get caught out by the ridiculous recoil.

So I ask (about just recoil as an example) why would a gamer be able to physically overcome it with proper technique as compared to a person who is handed a gun and told "This will recoil a nice bit" What game teaches you how to handle recoil?

There are lots of games that show recoil happening but how many teach you the right stance, weight distribution, grip, scope etiquette to deal with it?

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

The concept of bullet leading, is something I learned from games.

Really I learned it from childhood trying to throw things at moving things

How to use a scope and so forth also.

In fairness you mention military sims so maybe you have played the odd game which is a pretty realistic simulation of shooting a rifle. But if you are talking about Counter Strike or Call of Duty then the only thing you know about scopes is that you look in one end and when the cross hair is on the target you click a mouse or pull a trigger.

I'm not saying I'd be a marksman, I'm just saying my chances of hitting the target would be higher.

Why?

You haven't practised any of the actual skills that make someone a good shot.

I dunno how you can argue with that point.

Quite easily really because moving a cursor with a mouse or stick is as close to shooting as bashing buttons is to boxing.