| Rob Wright |
|
|
I want to believe that the inclusion of games in Biden's proposal is mostly pandering to the older/right-leaning electorate. My father, who belongs in both groups and who I love dearly, has never played a game in his life and in our first conversation after Sandy Hook, he blamed violent video games like "Call of the Battlefield or whatever it's called." He is so purely ignorant of games it's almost unfathomable. What will the pandering accomplish? Probably very little. Will it satisfy the older, right-leaning electorate's demand for blood? Maybe only a bit, if at all. Maybe it's just politics as usual.
So yes, I Want To Believe. But I also have nagging voice in the back of my head, reminding me about all the "studies" that were done about D&D and comic books when I was a kid and how it scared my parents away from allowing me to enjoy either for several years (I finally broke through the gauntlet, and arrived...here). So to answer the headline's question, yes, I believe games will get a fair shake, but I'm also slightly fearful. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Scott Clark |
|
I agree that "Congress should fund research on the effects violent video games have on young minds" implies they assume there's a link and therefore it's a question of degrees. And there certainly is the stain of being associated with any such study.
But I also think their back is up agains the wall on this. There's always enough vocal about it and they're as big a part of our culture as movies. Each form of entertainment has had to go through this, most recently movies in the mid-80s and videos games in the mid-00s. At the same time, while responsible parents are the gates to violent and adult content, determining when it's appropriate, we all do bear the burden for irresponsible parenting too. At the same time, I don't really think this will sway opinions any way. Fans will not buy fewer games because of the study, and the most vocal opponents are against an idea rather than facts, so I doubt the study would change their minds anyway. Thus the two sides will continue being divided. So I don't decry that video games are being added to the list for consideration. |
|
|
| Mike Griffin |
|
|
If it's convenient to postulate this:
"Congress should fund research on the effects violent video games have on young minds." It should be just as valid to seek: "Congress should fund research on why, and how often and easily, young minds are given access to violent video games." As he mentions, we don't benefit from ignorance. The perpetuation of violent media has existed since clan artisans painted violent cautionary "graphic novels" on cave walls, murder story scrolls became popular in ancient Egypt, sardonic and violent stage theater at the height of the Roman empire, and so on and so forth. There's also plenty of documented history showing crazy mass murderers and serial killers have existed since, well, the human mind evolved to a point where crazy was identifiable. Using chiseled stones, daggers, arson, poison, bows and arrows, or assault rifles and bomb vests. Nutjobs will be nutjobs, regardless of era and irrespective of violent media influences or endless weapons of choice, which human society has surrounded itself with for tens of thousands of years. It's the correct identification, treatment and therapy of broken and violence-prone individuals that brings us to the core of the issue. And we're better equipped today than at any point in history to recognize and contain these potentially dangerous individuals, to correctly curb their access to objects of violence, and to understand their effects. I fear that accessory and material scapegoats may steer us around the larger issue: Helping people stay safe and sane via awareness and shared well being, regardless of what's playing on screen or available for purchase behind the gun counter at the local Wal Mart. Arming the public at large so it's capable of actually addressing root causes, not heaping blame exclusively on ancillary devices. The comfort of objects distracts from the discomfort of actions. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Alan Rimkeit |
|
|
Everyone should know that for over all violence America is never in the top ten for murders per capita ever. Period. Forget gun violence. I am talking violence over. Why should we separate gun violence from all other types of violence and murder? I don't think we should. But that is just my opinion.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| William DiSanto |
|
Strange I seem to remember the US government using game like violence to leverage recruitment. There's a deadly fire arm in every inch of every frame, and its patriotic. How could this message possibly be misunderstood? It's not like these commercials are targeted towards children ....
Oh wait, yes the US government uses entertainment industries to glorify and trivialize violence in the eyes of children across the internet, on cable television and at recruiting events held in our US public and private schools. Have you ever talked to a marine/army/navy recruiter ... yeah it goes like this: "Hey kid, do you want to blow shit up, do you want fully automatic weapons ... well we've got the job for you!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MorDCtBPR8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEtZ5r0CIYI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg9K1mCh65U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiB3vrhPDNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU1y1G6uzAI |
|
|
| N D |
|
Gamasutra's comment section is sounding more and more like the NRA with every politics article. This is sad, people. We're better than this.
Here's the thing: there is no language the president could have used that wouldn't have implied something. He chose the language that implied there is some link, and honestly, speaking as an avid gamer and as a psychologist, there probably is. Is that link strong? Probably not, but I can practically guarantee that video games, violent or otherwise, affect us in some way. It's virtually impossible for anything we experience not to affect us, and saying that video games can't is tantamount to denying that our medium has any power. If video games don't affect us, they're just time wasters, and all the "video games aren't art" people are right. So this brings us to a very important question. Why are we afraid of research? Yes, science can be biased, but it is far less biased than the wild, baseless speculation that both sides throw around constantly. Research will give us a more accurate picture of reality, even if no individual study is perfect. So why are we afraid of that? What result could come forth that we would rather live without? If the research vindicates us, all the better. If it shows that video games are actually seriously harmful, isn't it better to know? Are we really so fanatical that we would defend our pastime if it posed a serious danger to our children's lives? I think we're better than that. We want to do what's right. We just also don't want what's right to conflict with what we enjoy. That's perfectly normal, but it's no reason to hate the science. More research isn't going to create the conflict. Research can only bring to light what already exists. By denying that, by saying a call to research is a bad thing, we're just hiding under the covers because we're afraid of what might await us outside. But whatever's out there is already there, and hiding from it can only harm us. It's time to stop being cowards and face the truth, whether it's pleasant or not. I think it will be pleasant, mostly, but we're better off knowing either way. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Daniel Miller |
|
We should probably study if the horrific stories and images from being in a state of constant, flaccid war for nearly a decade has any effect on young minds.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Ed Macauley |
|
I must be alone in that I think this particular piece has no value. All this article does is reiterate vague points that have already been covered and encourage wild speculation and another idiotic debate in the comments section. Gamasutra, you are better than this.
Games might not get a fair shake. In other news, fire is hot and will burn you. Gamasutra, please don't contribute to the echo chamber of paranoia and speculation. Instead of telling us what we already know, how about some ideas about how we (the industry) can help drive the process and make it objective? |
|
|
| Vahid Kazemi |
|
Quote: The President's wording, specifically saying "the effects violent video games have on young minds," is in itself already suggesting a link between the two.
Yes. That definitely suggests the connection! Gamasutra sounds like Fox News defending guns. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| james sadler |
|
|
I really think this is all just going to blow over for the games industry as it has in the past. These politicians are catering to the media fire going on right now. When they say "lets research it" that usually means they'll give some scientists money to look into it, but they really don't care about the results. By the time the results come in the subject will be over and a lot of them will be out of office anyway. Its a way to appease the public by showing that they're doing something, but not actually do anything that would affect them now. Ahhhhh politics.
|
|
|
| Rebecca Richards |
|
|
Wow, you guys are going to keep riding this sensationalist train all the way off the cliff, aren't you? Call me when Gamasutra is interested in covering real news again and not trying to gin up hits on sensationalism.
Seriously, think about this - you guys spent the entirety of 2012 decrying the effects of misogyny and sexualized violence on our industry, it's perception, and its customer base. And when I say "you guys", I am also going to note that this article's writer was involved in a great number of those. Why are you suddenly backpedaling now except that you think you'll get more hits off of Kotaku-like paranoia? Gamasutra has been and should be better than this and its seriously damaging your credibility on the real issues I just mentioned. |
|
|
| Don Meyer |
|
This article is typical of the government on the violent video games and its relationship to point the finger first at the gaming industry. What happen at the Sandy Hook Element School was very extremely bad without any doubts. But the same study was done several years back when 2 other guys did similar things. One of the guys in a high school shooting said that Grand Theft Auto 3 or Vice City told him to do it. Just so he didn't have to face jail time instead be mentally insane. Then another guy went into a city close to a jail and start shooting cops and wrecking cars. Then he said that Grand Theft Auto Vice City made and told him to do that. They always point directly at the video game industry never ever point at the movie industry.
Now the thing about this is to face the facts. They even got reports back about this guy. The state police even said. This act was pretty much planned by the shooter. Because they heard from witness there. That as soon as he heard the police sirens. He turned the gun on himself. What they should worry about why the guns were even bought in the first place by his own mother. If he had a mental illness! How on earth did he even know she bought this guns. Now on the other hand is the gaming industry going to get a fair shake in this. As long as these people keep a level had about things. And they are not a holy roller. Then maybe! If not -- then they would pretty much kill off one of the leading profit end of this industry plain and simple. Then what they really should do is bring out games based on. "My Little Pony" "Cabbage Patch Kids" "Rainbow Bright" "Muppet Babies" "A heavy dose of Dora the Explorer" "A heavy dose of Barney" Oh yes in other cases you might want to just get rid of all video games because they all have violence in them somewhere. |
|
|
| Walter Verburg |
|
All this fuss just seems silly. Whatever the effect is, it isn't going to be zero. We are a product of our experiences, and if nothing else, it's common sense that seeing violence desensitizes one to it.
The real question is a matter of degree, and I for one would some to see some actual research done on the topic. I've always thought that the interactive and immersive components of video games give it more psychological potential, but I've never known for sure, despite the fact that I would very much like to. The fears of games not getting a fair shake are not totally unfounded, the US government hasn't always been out best friend, but it has never been a true enemy. If there is an enemy in this case, it's the NRA, and if you didn't know, they aren't too friendly with the Obama administration either. If this is skewed in any way, I think that it would be "in games favor" to make the NRA and the "right wing nut jobs" look ignorant. TLDR: I think that game designers have much to gain and little to fear, despite a catastrophic worst case scenario. |
|
|
| Brandon Van Every |
|
|
It is the 1st time I've heard Obama say something where I thought he was seriously full of s**t. It's clear: he heads up an anti-gun lobby. He wants to find something to blame. We've had decades of research, as well as a SCOTUS decision, saying video games are not to blame. Yet he calls for "more research" and beneficial "information." It's like the Religious Far Right getting in charge of the White House, then calling for more "information" about why women choose to have an abortion.
|
|
|
More: Console/PC, Social/Online, Smartphone/Tablet, Indie, Serious, Business/Marketing, Exclusive