The 'Violence in video games' argument again!

Dont be at yourself · 30-10-2009 02:29PM

Its right that games express emotions but the types of emotions are controlled to be positive as people play games to enjoy themselves.

Bingo. The actions may be violent, disturbing and anti-social, but the game is triggering enjoyable emotions. How exposing a developing child to this is a good thing, I don't know.

Retr0gamer · 30-10-2009 02:31PM

Pulling the trigger in a videogame is completely different to doing it in real life. I know developers are striving for reality but there's a long way to go. As long as the world is unbelieveable and scripted and you control the world with a controller it will never be as immersive as the tabloids make out.

Otacon · 30-10-2009 02:33PM

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

How exposing a developing child to this is a good thing, I don't know.

Who is doing this?

Dont be at yourself · 30-10-2009 02:35PM

Who is doing this?

Irresponsible parents.

Xluna · 30-10-2009 02:49PM

They said the same about pop/rock music...

faceman · 30-10-2009 02:56PM

The Examiner ran a similar story today although they said that the player controls the terrorist. FFS, did any of these rags do their research before running the story?

Even Gerry Ryan had a rant about it today in defense of the game!

Overheal · 30-10-2009 03:18PM

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Pulling the trigger in a videogame is completely different to doing it in real life. I know developers are striving for reality but there's a long way to go. As long as the world is unbelieveable and scripted and you control the world with a controller it will never be as immersive as the tabloids make out.

Same for driving.

Id say when youre kid is hooked on shooters, take him to a gun range. Show him the biggest loudest recoiliest gun you can find. My first shot was from a Desert Eagle .45 - that will put the fear of higher beings into you.

Jazzy · 30-10-2009 03:23PM

The Independent wrote:

Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is released on November 10 of this year for the Xbox 360 and PS3 consoles. "

gotta love the free advertising

docdolittle · 30-10-2009 03:24PM

RobertFoster wrote: »

Why has no one ever made a concentration camp game along the style of Theme Hospital?

I'm going to steal your idea and make MILLIONS now :pac: *Insert evil laugh here*

I was asked this question before actually.... It would have to be an indie game, if any company did anything like that they would be hunted down by all those crazy groups of people who hate games :P Plus the whole moral factor :rolleyes:

Edit: quoted the wrong thing :P fixed

Corkfeen · 30-10-2009 03:53PM

Its probably not the best for a young child to play violent videogames but its not the game makers fault. This argument is the most repetitive thing ever.;)

Actually does anyone remember the "Postal" games, now that was politically incorrect to a huge degree.

You could kill anything that moved in that, including gary coleman.

docdolittle · 30-10-2009 04:00PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Its probably not the best for a young child to play violent videogames but its not the game makers fault. This argument is the most repetitive thing ever.;)

Actually does anyone remember the "Postal" games, now that was politically incorrect to a huge degree. You could kill anything that moved in that, including gary coleman.

You know postal 3 is coming to the 360 and PS3?

hooradiation · 30-10-2009 04:26PM

Victor_M wrote: »

These tabloid rag AKA the Indo is trying to drum up anti video game propaganda in advance of COD MW2, i'm sure an almost identical 'article' appeared before GTA4.

"Leaked footage from Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 showing the killing of innocent civilians looks likely to renew the debate on video game violence.

The leaked footage from the forthcoming Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 shows the player killing unarmed civilians with a group of terrorists at what looks like LAX airport in Los Angeles.

The scenes are likely to be criticised by family interest groups and media watchdogs and will possibly turn the developer and publisher into the latest lightning rods for video game controversy.

Activision, the game's publisher, said that the scene is taken from an early stage in the game's campaign mode.

In a statement, Activision said: "The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player’s mission to stop them."

“Players have the option of skipping over the scene. At the beginning of the game, there are two ‘checkpoints’ where the player is advised that some people may find an forthcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can’t be disabled."

It continued: “Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies. It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes, which means it is intended for those who are 18 and older."

Created by USA-based games developer, Infinity Ward, Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is one of the most hotly anticipated titles of this year, and is expected to be one of the biggest selling games this Christmas.

Earlier this year, Activision announced they would be charging £10 more than standard new release prices for the game. Its predecessor, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, also developed by Infinity Ward and the last major release in the series, is thought to have sold 13 million copies around the world.

Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is released on November 10 of this year for the Xbox 360 and PS3 consoles. "

This sort of reporting will only drive kids mad to get their hands on it.

While the effect of violent video games and just how much responsibility developers have when making games that portray violence is a great debate, I'm struggling to see what the hell your beef is with this article.

It's factual, neutral and devoid of hysteria. Look, This is rampant hysteria and bullshit, the above isn't.

Reporting that a game which shows civilians getting shot might cause controversy isn't bad journalism, at all.

Are we really that thin skinned that anything which isn't sycophantic gushing praise for the games industry is automatically "anti video game propaganda"?

As for the violence in games debate, parents do need to actually pay attention to the damn ratings, but developers need to stop using that as an excuse to turn the gore all the way up to 11 for no damn reason.

This game is actually a case in point, i mean the developers have said that this part of the game can be skipped "without losing any of the story." If that is so, why even include it in the game?

If it's just for visceral thrills (as it seems to be) then frankly they deserve all the scorn they get.

docdolittle · 30-10-2009 04:40PM

hooradiation wrote: »

This game is actually a case in point, i mean the developers have said that this part of the game can be skipped "without losing any of the story." If that is so, why even include it in the game?

If it's just for visceral thrills (as it seems to be) then frankly they deserve all the scorn they get.

I really don't agree with what you are saying here. As pointed out in the article, InfinityWard put this in to show the degree of which terrorists will go to. It is there so in your mind you will want to stop the terrorist from doing this again when you play as your main characters. It was given this option so that many people (who should be over 18 playing this, I know its not going to happen, but that's another argument) have the option to skip it if they don't like that kind of thing. I don't think it is purely for shock value or "visceral thrills" as you put it....

I can't understand why people get so bothered about this kind of stuff.. The people that don't want these games to be published are never going to play them anyway. I know the debate is that children will get there hands onto these games, but it is up to parents, not the game developer to censor games that are ok for children to play. There are even sites to help parents to decide if a game is ok for there children!

To sum this up: :rolleyes:

hooradiation · 30-10-2009 04:52PM

docdolittle wrote: »

I really don't agree with what you are saying here. As pointed out in the article, InfinityWard put this in to show the degree of which terrorists will go to. It is there so in your mind you will want to stop the terrorist from doing this again when you play as your main characters. It was given this option so that many people (who should be over 18 playing this, I know its not going to happen, but that's another argument) have the option to skip it if they don't like that kind of thing. I don't think it is purely for shock value or "visceral thrills" as you put it....

Well it's either part of the story, or it isn't. If it is, then you shouldn't be able to skip it, but if you can skip it and miss out on nothing, then why is it there?

It can't be pivotal in showing us how far the terrorists will go and yet at the same time be so unimportant as to be skipped and not affect the story at all.

To use another medium, the kerb-stomp scene from American History X gets me every damn time, i dunno why but it does, makes my skin crawl.
But it's part of the story, if you skip it then you are missing out and as much as i don't like it i wouldn't consider skipping over it, and i don't think Tony Kaye or Ed Norton would argue that you could skip it and not have the story affected in the slightest.

It just seems like a tool to cause calculated outrage as free advertisement, and frankly if they want to do that, they can go die in a fire.

Jazzy · 30-10-2009 04:53PM

Daily Star wrote:

The high-spec, see-in-the-dark gear has led the game to be dubbed Modern Warfare 2: Peeping Tom Edition.

HAS IT REALLY Ciaran Hannah!!!???

i wouldnt worry about all this tbh. most of the people who read those red tops and in fact any of the outlets that report on "VIOLENT COMPUTER GAMES" are utterly retarded anyway.
the only problem is that developers might start taking in what the retards say and develop games based on appeasing them. i dont think thats gonna happen though as the publicity they get out of these sort of articles gets them more money then designing games that appease idiots.

Leiva · 30-10-2009 04:58PM

Again it falls on the parents Laps no one else .
Violent games will be made , Drugs will be sold ..educate, educate , educate.

My point was that there seems to be a mentality that "its only a game" with some parents .
This needs to stop and parents need to understand and educate themselves that some games can be as violent as the type of movies they wouldn't dare let their kids watch.
At the moment I personally feel that game developers do not emphasis or warn how much violence is in their releases , a major movie maker would not get away with this !

Overature · 30-10-2009 05:00PM

I can see what negaitive effects that GTA has on people, but if it was to do anything, it would but halp people learn of the horrors of war and what was going on in the middle east at the moment. The people who make Call of Duty try to make it as real as possible.

docdolittle · 30-10-2009 05:01PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Well it's either part of the story, or it isn't. If it is, then you shouldn't be able to skip it, but if you can skip it and miss out on nothing, then why is it there?

It can't be pivotal in showing us how far the terrorists will go and yet at the same time be so unimportant as to be skipped and not affect the story at all.

To use another medium, the kerb-stomp scene from American History X gets me every damn time, i dunno why but it does, makes my skin crawl.
But it's part of the story, if you skip it then you are missing out and as much as i don't like it i wouldn't consider skipping over it, and i don't think Tony Kaye or Ed Norton would argue that you could skip it and not have the story affected in the slightest.

It just seems like a tool to cause calculated outrage as free advertisement, and frankly if they want to do that, they can go die in a fire.

Ok.. to be honest, you do sound like you are going a little over the top there, they are game developers trying to bring a new expieriece to people and you want them to die in a fire (that to me sounds like you should be the one thinking about morals in life, never mind video games)

I for one won't be skipping it as I want to see what it plays like. After this I won't be going outside and gunning innocent people down as this is just another source of entertainment in media like film (saw films for example, I don't watch these though) nor will I want people to die in fires as you do...

You should get some perspective on this, it's meant for adults who want to escape the real world and play a game. The start with the terrorists may not effect the storyline but it may effect a persons view of the game to a greater extent within the gameplay and how I.W. are trying to show there game in a new way.

C_Dawg · 30-10-2009 05:09PM

As someone previously said these games are often certed 18.

Even then only a mental patient would be influenced by the content.

We should wait for a spokeswoman of an anti video game violence organisation to appear on the news and run her over with a car that I hotwired by repeatedly tapped L2 & R2 and then hop out and collect the glowing green chunks of cash.

hooradiation · 30-10-2009 05:17PM

docdolittle wrote: »

Ok.. to be honest, you do sound like you are going a little over the top there, they are game developers trying to bring a new expieriece to people and you want them to die in a fire (that to me sounds like you should be the one thinking about morals in life, never mind video games)

hyperbole? On the Internet? SHOCKING!

.....

Die in a fire is just an expression, don't fret.

docdolittle wrote: »

I for one won't be skipping it as I want to see what it plays like. After this I won't be going outside and gunning innocent people down as this is just another source of entertainment in media like film (saw films for example, I don't watch these though) nor do I want people to die in fires as you do...

oh god, you're going to make a thing out of this, aren't you.....

docdolittle wrote: »

You should get some perspective on this, it's meant for adults who want to escape the real world and play a game. The start with the terrorists may not effect the storyline but it may effect a persons view of the game to a greater extent within the gameplay and how I.W. are trying to show there game in a new way.

I'm pretty certain IW are trying to tell a story here, it may be a clichéd one, but it's a story.

If developers want their story telling to be taken seriously then they're going to have to accept that people may find their story a bit tasteless in places and question why the scene exists.

Amazingly if you have an industry that's spent forever trying to assert that they aren't just cheap disposable pieces of electronic fluff, then they don't get a free pass when their efforts turn out to be crass.

It's like a damned roundabout. Roger Eber claims that video games "could not be art" and we're all clambering to prove him wrong, say that this killing civilians scene is crass and suddenly it's all "Jeez, it's just a game, relax"

no wonder nobody takes us seriously....

docdolittle · 30-10-2009 05:29PM

hooradiation wrote: »

hyperbole? On the Internet? SHOCKING!

.....

Die in a fire is just an expression, don't fret.

oh god, you're going to make a thing out of this, aren't you.....

I'm pretty certain IW are trying to tell a story here, it may be a clichéd one, but it's a story.

If developers want their story telling to be taken seriously then they're going to have to accept that people may find their story a bit tasteless in places and question why the scene exists.

Amazingly if you have an industry that's spent forever trying to assert that they aren't just cheap disposable pieces of electronic fluff, then they don't get a free pass when their efforts turn out to be crass.

It's like a damned roundabout. Roger Eber claims that video games "could not be art" and we're all clambering to prove him wrong, say that this killing civilians scene is crass and suddenly it's all "Jeez, it's just a game, relax"

no wonder nobody takes us seriously....

I was just joking about your die in a fire part don't worry I don't take things that seriously

I had to learn about the whole "are games art" argument, and then after that "What is art" It actually made me think about what we consider art, especially with "art" such as this

Is this art? It is displayed in an art gallary by an artist...

Back on topic though: There are a lot more violent games that are just overly violent for the sake of violence, I don't think IW are going for this. They are however, in a way, making you think about your morals if you choose to play this

Just like in many games such as Fable or Black & White, you have the choice to do this evil thing or not

Zillah · 30-10-2009 05:29PM

Quotin' from page 1 in this here thread.

WolfForager wrote: »

But that 1% can be quite insane, ie. the teenager in the US who killed his parents because they took away his copy of Halo3, thinking "O, they'll respawn".

Such a person is so insane they were going to explode at some point, the actual form their break down takes is immaterial.

mixednuts wrote: »

Can I ask the question a little differently .
Do you think gaming , on line FPS for example, raises agression levels ?

Yes, perhaps temporarily, as any competitive activity will. Best ban sports so.

eldin · 30-10-2009 05:31PM

Whatever happened to Jack Thompson? I used to get a giggle out of his rants and tirades against violence in games.

Anyway, since when is killing innocents in games new? If I'm not specifically penalised in a game (failing a mission or something) then i'll often set up some innocent bystander carnage just to watch them fly through the air, often with hilarious consequences. On the flipside, if I saw someone hit their hand with a hammer in real life I'd be squeemish.

If a game is over 18 and retailers are barred from selling to underage kids then the buck stops with the parents and nobody else.

hooradiation · 30-10-2009 05:43PM

docdolittle wrote: »

Back on topic though: There are a lot more violent games that are just overly violent for the sake of violence, I don't think IW are going for this. They are however, in a way, making you think about your morals if you choose to play this Just like in many games such as Fable or Black & White, you have the choice to do this evil thing or not

Hmmm, I'm not convinced, i really do think it's just for publicities sake. I'd have more conviction in it being a story telling device if they either just made you do it/made you witness it or didn't.

It's not a moral game really, it's no Fable or B&W where your choices shape the story (at least as far as i can see), it's a bull run. Which is fine, but then adding in a 'choice' element that doesn't seem to have any bearing on the rest of the game just seems at odds with that.

Especially when that choice is around an area that would be controversial... it's either publicity or damage limitation and i can't really respect either of them.

BlitzKrieg · 30-10-2009 05:47PM

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I think you're doing the medium an incredible disservice there. Videogames are increasingly capable of immersing the user in their virtual worlds and of provoking emotional responses. The strive for, and popularity of, HD graphics, Dolby Surround sound, rumble feedback, motion control and increased graphic fidelity all underline how important it is for the player to feel some way connected to the character's on-screen actions. To distil it down to "playing with dolls" is to hugely underplay what the medium is capable of.

Its interesting that people take this stance that video games are more harmful because of their interactivity. Yet talk to filmmakers over the years and they will tell you the complete opposite (and its a popular theory in film studies). Passive media like films are much more influential because of their passive design. The layout of a cinema is designed to create a one to one experiance between every viewer where they are essentially swallowed as a vouyer of the events onscreen. Its supposed to link directly with the viewers subconcious and the lack of control is a major factor of this.

Two interesting asides to this is A) its a factor of why people are so angry at those who talk in the cinema and

why films tend to be not as powerful at home.

In each case its control being given to an entity. In the case of the talker in the cinema, its someone else pulling you out of the experiance. And in the case of at home, the design allows for you to wonder from the events on screen (your living room, differen channels, the ability to pause etc etc) so it doesnt connect as strongly.

The same logic applied to video games presents a clear and simple series of events.

Event on screen - Player's reaction.

But on a sub concious level.

Events on screen

-Association of said events with controls/points/rewards

-Application of said controls to achieve said points for said rewards

Players reaction.

Video games have a natural barrier against the events on screen that work as a constent reminder that the actions happening are not real.

The extent of it is much more then any other media. All the features of video are there. You can pause etc. But much more on top of that, menu's huds and artificial identifiers are constantly there to ground the player.

Players will get a rush for surviving an onslaught in Halo or Gears of War with 1HP remaining, for sneaking up and knifing somebody in the back in Assassin's Creed, or for taking on a dozen goons in Arkham Asylum. If videogames didn't provoke these responses, people wouldn't play them!

THe responses they evoke though and the rush all constantly have artificial barriers that ensure that the rush is firmly kept in the same risk/reward responses one gets from playing a sport or a card game. Artificial rules abided by (kept 1HP as you put it). complex hand eye coordination and application of combos (Arkham Asylum and Assassin's creed) THe sub concious is constantly grounded in reality with every action committed.

The single best proof of this artificial barrier is to simply go to a lan. Go and look at people who play alot of counter strike, how they have it set up and play the game. They play to the mechanics of the software and not to the events on screen.

Bunny hopping

awp whoring

zerg rushing (stracraft)

long distance grenade throwing (cod4)

and so on. People who play video games very quickly break them down to their artificial elements.

On the game itself though.

I've said it on the cod forum, I am torn on the issue. Not because of the violence, but because of the excuse. They say that they want to show the horrors of terrorism.

Well the events depicted in the game (I've seen the video) is not terrorism. It looks like something else which i'll get to in a moment, but who has actually seen a terrorist attack where they walk through an airport indescriminantly shooting. I've not.

It does remind me of something though, and that is what makes me uncomfortable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UcvxNNJJ-A

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=FAE2WQPC

Yes I'm serious, the events on screen does remind me of a school shooting more so then any act of terrorism.

Does that mean I think it should be banned or censored?

No, but I do think the section might have warranted a better think through maybe.

They will get a media sh*tstorm. From america it will mostly because the player is actually an undercover CIA agent committing the atrocity, so expect fox news to go at it from that angle, though to be honest I have disliked the jingoism of the war FPS games like COD and MOH for a while now so I actually like the undercover CIA part of it.

I just think they might have tried to be more creative in the scenario. Cause at the moment it looks like a school shooting to me.

docdolittle · 30-10-2009 06:06PM

Might want to throw up NSFW or warn the not so desensitized amoung us for that youTube vid Blitz :P Some people are against violence a lil' in this thread and that one even shocked me a lil

Dont be at yourself · 30-10-2009 06:29PM

Good post Blitzkrieg, it's always interesting to hear from the other side of the fence! I'm not a psychologist, so I can't really make a judgement on how sound your reasoning is. However, there's plenty of food for thought there.

Despite your argument that the voyeurism aspect to cinema ultimately influences the viewer to a greater extent, I can't help but disagree. In videogames, the player must actively and consciously make decisions and take actions to perform often gruesome acts of violence. We've all experienced the satisfaction of a stealth kill, which illustrates how emotionally engaging the videogames can be. As I've said, the vast majority can distinguish between reality and videogames, but surely associating such actions with the positive emotions videogames evoke has a harmful affect on children and the mentally immature.

You mention that a gamer will quickly break down a game into its core mechanics and effectively detach from the on-screen events. I agree that there's some truth in that. However, looking at how games have evolved in the last 25 years, you must agree that this isn't as easy as it once was. Blockbuster titles pull out all of the stops to immerse the player in the game, in terms of physics, surround sound, graphical fidelity, motion controls, force-feedback, 3D really do put the player at the centre of the on-screen events. Playing through the first level of Killzone 2 is a lot more emotionally engaging than playing through that of Commander Keen, and that's a trend that's only going to continue in the future, as production values further approach photo-realism.

docdolittle wrote:

Some people are against violence a lil' in this thread

I don't think anybody is against violence in this thread. I count certain violent videogames amongst my favourites. I am against violence just for the sake of violence, however. Postal and Soldier of Fortune are examples of the puerile nonsense which bring nothing to the world in terms of creativity or storytelling. They are empty, vacuous games with nothing to say, and the medium would be better off without them.

thebman · 30-10-2009 06:34PM

You mention that a gamer will quickly break down a game into its core mechanics and effectively detach from the on-screen events. I agree that there's some truth in that. However, looking at how games have evolved in the last 25 years, you must agree that this isn't as easy as it once was. Blockbuster titles pull out all of the stops to immerse the player in the game, in terms of physics, surround sound, graphical fidelity, motion controls, force-feedback, 3D really do put the player at the centre of the on-screen events. Playing through the first level of Killzone 2 is a lot more emotionally engaging than playing through that of Commander Keen, and that's a trend that's only going to continue in the future, as production values further approach photo-realism.

I didn't actually find KZ2 to evoke much emotion at all TBH except maybe frustration at certain design decisions. I have a surround sound system and all. I stopped playing when I got to the palace.

I don't think anybody is against violence in this thread. I count certain violent videogames amongst my favourites. I am against violence just for the sake of violence, however. Postal and Soldier of Fortune are examples of the puerile nonsense which bring nothing to the world in terms of creativity or storytelling. They are empty, vacuous games with nothing to say, and the medium would be better off without them.

You could claim the same thing about every explicit sex scene in any movie ever pretty much. Most of the time a kiss an lying on the bed would be enough to get the point across with them waking up next to each other in the movies yet many movies have these scenes too. Many movies have pointless action scenes too. Many of them are very popular in the year they are released too but I guess they aren't interactive so receive a get out of jail free card from you.

Jazzy · 30-10-2009 06:43PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

zerg rushing (stracraft)

its clearly all about the SCV rush

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jen46qkZVNI

BlitzKrieg · 30-10-2009 06:44PM

the player must actively and consciously make decisions and take actions to perform often gruesome acts of violence.

I gotta run so I'll get a proper response when I get back, but a quick food for thought point.

The issue at hand is not the choice the player makes, its the tools at hand that the player has to make those choices.

That is the artifical barrier.

A player can say in Bioshock choose to kill a little sister or save her.

What is the tool to make that choice?

Its a menu, with a yes or no option. Influential sub concious link *GROUNDED*

In open gameplay consider the tools that a player has at his disposal to perform these acts, not the acts themselves. It is that constant touch that X button = decapatation that grounds the issue, not that there is decapatation.

There is no situation in video games, none where the player can make a two step leap of see bad guy, kill bad guy. Video games enforces a third step at all times. see bad guy, input control, kill bad guy.

The 'Violence in video games' argument again!

Comments