This topic is way too sticky to get into without delving into some pretty intense topics. Perhaps we could go deep into psychology or even sociology, find a primal need to conquer through brute force that has been largely suppressed in modern society. When was the last time you had to pillage and raze another village just to eat for another week? When was the last time your tribe had to go wipe out that other tribe over a well or some other vital resource?
And this is just some idle armchair speculation of the issue. I am very confidant that it goes much, much further.
As far as saying we feel nothing based on what we see in a video game, that's sad. Not because I think it makes others heartless or anything retarded like that. I think it is sad because it remains one of the reasons that games can't be more than cheap, disposable entertainment for the masses. As long as people don't try to project into the game even a little bit, or suspend disbelief enough to analyze how they'd feel in similar situations, they'll never find a game that actually engages them like great works of literature, movies, etc. can.
Actually I was referring to my own unit's survey in San Mateo on Camp Pendleton, but the survey is passed throughout all military units and bases. Not consistantly of course, but it always seemed to get done about every couple years.
So, I'm curious - what is the 'right' answer, or is the answer used to determine duty assignments?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I am a sadistic bastard. I loved the no Russian level. It was fun. I laughed gleefully as I mowed people down because I was like "wow I can't believe they are allowing this." I would never do such a thing in real life of course You don't know that. If you enjoy doing it in a game (as you admit), then you might well do it in real life, as long as you know you will not suffer any consequences from doing so. but it was a fun surprise. People need to realize it's just a game. Its not real. What about violent TV shows, movies, books, and the like?
There is a moral difference between watching someone else commit evil, and doing it yourself.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Actually I was referring to my own unit's survey in San Mateo on Camp Pendleton, but the survey is passed throughout all military units and bases. Not consistantly of course, but it always seemed to get done about every couple years.
So, I'm curious - what is the 'right' answer, or is the answer used to determine duty assignments?
The "right" answer depends on the individual. One suspects that what those behind the surveys are looking for is personnel who will follow orders, no matter what is involved. That has its own implications. While the UCMJ is official doctrine, following orders is safer personally and professionally.
I am a sadistic bastard. I loved the no Russian level. It was fun. I laughed gleefully as I mowed people down because I was like "wow I can't believe they are allowing this." I would never do such a thing in real life of course You don't know that. If you enjoy doing it in a game (as you admit), then you might well do it in real life, as long as you know you will not suffer any consequences from doing so. but it was a fun surprise. People need to realize it's just a game. Its not real. What about violent TV shows, movies, books, and the like?
There is a moral difference between watching someone else commit evil, and doing it yourself.
Your last comment...about the difference between WATCHING evil and doing it yourself, made me think of this.
I absolutely unashamedly enjoy the Showtime series called DEXTER. I have watched every single episode of every season to date. I find it to be fantastically creative writing and one of very few compelling television shows on today. For those that have been living in a cave and don't know....DEXTER is the story of a serial killer. And some of the scenes in the show are bloody horrible and brutally graphic. You could reason this away with, "Yes, but Dex only kills people who kill innocent people. He's really a vigilante." And while that might be true....the WAY he "takes justice into his own hands," can be really frightfully awful, to be honest.
Would I PLAY Dexter in a game and....in a game....kill people and chop them into bits and throw their body parts into the ocean? Uhmmmm.....no. I would not be at all interested in a game like that or in roleplaying a violent criminal. But...admittedly....that is just ME and how I personally feel about the difference between interactively ACTING OUT the role of a serial killer, and watching one on a story on television. Acting it out, and actually being in control of a character that does those things....would probably make me vomit.
Killing other human beings isn't the same, to ME, as killing elves, orcs, and dragons, or other assorted fairytale creatures. This is also why I don't really enjoy PvP as an over all style of play, although I have done it.....some. And it's definitely why I don't play ANY....that's zero, nada, zip....war games. To me....war isn't a good game "topic."
Now I realize that a LOT...a whole lot....of gamers do not share my feelings and thoughts about this, and I'm perfectly okay with that. But I also think there are a great many gamers that DO think and feel the same way I do about this.
I absolutely think in a game, a gamer should be given multiple choices about how to handle things....much like in Fable. That would ALWAYS be my preference. If a game FORCES me into doing something that is outside my own moral code....I probably won't be very drawn to play that game. Granted....this is just ME here. I don't feel it's my job to determine someone else's sense of morality (if we MUST use that particular word). At the end of the day...I don't have to live with anyone's conscience but my OWN. Yes....I know games aren't real, the same way as I know television shows and movies aren't real. But I simply don't feel it's a healthy choice, for me, to interactively play a human being brutalizing other human beings, whether that's re-enacting war, or something more sinister, like in the game "Manhunt," or "Postal 2," or whatever. Those kind of games don't appeal to me.
Just more evidence that gamers are as different as snowflakes...after all....we're human. No two of us are identical in the way we game or in the way we PERCEIVE games. And I don't agree with censorship, even if I don't choose to participate in the potential object OF censorship.
Originally posted by Eindrachen As far as saying we feel nothing based on what we see in a video game, that's sad. Not because I think it makes others heartless or anything retarded like that. I think it is sad because it remains one of the reasons that games can't be more than cheap, disposable entertainment for the masses. As long as people don't try to project into the game even a little bit, or suspend disbelief enough to analyze how they'd feel in similar situations, they'll never find a game that actually engages them like great works of literature, movies, etc. can.
Exactly... and I think all this relates to something else... boredom. The people who spout the mantra "it's just a game"... are the same people who post in other threads "why are MMOs so boring? I don't FEEL anything when I play them". duh. You've turned it off, so of course you are not going to feel anything but disconnected... clicking through drudgery .... it's like the modern slasher/gore movies; not nearly as entertaining and engaging as the old black-and-white Hitchcock movies that didn't show that much of anything really...
immersion, choice, identifying with the characters, feeling guilt, hate, joy, fear, etc. That's what is MISSING in games today. The number of people that can easily say "it's just a game" is directly proportional to the failure of the industry.... imo.
I guess I wouldn't care to play the No Russian level only because the game is forcing me into a behavior that I would never condone or do. Had they put it in and made all choices a win, whether it be from slaughtering the civilians or shooting the terrorists I'd have no problem with it. But the fact that designers make you lose the scenario for choosing to do the right thing is annoying to me.
I'm not likely to ever play this game (if its not an MMORPG, its not a game to me) but if I ever do I'll be sure to heed their warning and opt out of that mission. Thanks for the heads up.
As far as morality goes, I do feel that a lot of players in MMO's exhibit sociopathic tendencies and I do feel it probably represents how they are in real life somewhat.(even if real life's punishments and consequences helps them stay in check)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
no i really don't care whether i win or not, i really just play it then log off, sorry if that's weird but then again i'm not all that sane =P also i have only finished 2 games ever, like i said i just buy something play it off and on then ditch it. Even in mmo's i get so many hours a week, don't care about progress, just something to do.
Once you put it like that fun or not fun i guess that would be the most emotion i show with a video game, still no attachment, i don't get mad if a game is bad, i don't scream i wasted money on such and such terrible game, guess i'm dull when it comes to gaming -shrugs-
i would agree people are decensitized to violence and stuff, but hey it doesn't bother me one bit, i don't sit here and think about harming people or hating people. Too many other important things out there then to waste emotions on video games or similar things in general.
oh and on the subject of fun, i rarely get excited if something is fun, i'm pretty much like hey this is fun, not HEY THIS IS FUN!!!!
You know....you actually sound very stable. Reminds me of my ex-husband. He was like a rock. He was a wonderful person (we were actually friends for years and years after our divorce until he moved to another state). There wasn't anything "wrong" with him, he just wasn't a very "emoting" kind of person. He wasn't mentally ill, a sociopath, or cold-hearted. He was just very reserved. His favorite game was DOOM, and he loved killing demons....lol.
I don't think you're weird for the way you, personally, use video games as a time filler for "something to do." Nothing wrong with that at all.
You're probably a good example of ...."We're all different." Just because someone is different than me, or you, doesn't make them less valid in any way.
This is why censorship in gaming is such a ridiculous idea at the bottom line. People are like snowflakes....no two are IDENTICAL. And while a certain video game may not be my personal "cup of tea," it certainly shouldn't prevent anyone else from enjoying it. While it may contain "emotional triggers" for me....that doesn't mean it does for EVERYONE and the opposite can also be said.
Mental illness is an ENTIRELY different topic. This is where the people that want to get rid of violence in games, seem confused, I think. Without treading on the rights of the vast majority to choose their own form of entertainment, whether that is movies, art, games, or golf....there is no way to prevent "bad things" from happening within the minority. If we babysit society to the point of taking away CHOICES....it's not going to prevent people from still doing what they want to do, ultimately.
And before someone says, "but it would only be taking away choices in video game entertainment...." right. That's how freedom is eroded....one right at a time. The price we, as a society, have to pay for some of our freedoms....is that some people aren't going to be able to HANDLE those freedoms responsibly. But, like I said, we cannot "babysit" society without it eventually becoming a state of martial law. The price for freedom is that sometimes....there will be problems. Sometimes those problems will be big. But it's not worth, in my opinion, giving up the right to make choices.
Life is just not so black and white.
Nice post except the point myself and some have been trying to make is not censor anyone persay but to at least give choices of right and wrong moral choices. There is no good excuse for a game designer to force a gamer to choose only one moral decision path based on his/her views of the world. 1st amendment aside, if that game designer wants the game to sell to a wide audience, then they have to give options or fail. If you as a gamer chose to support that game just because everyone else buys it or there is nothing else to do, or you are immoral anyhow...then maybe that gamer needs to do a reality check. If game designers get sent a message of no sales for games like that they will change their type of IP they make whether they like it or not.
I know because I have been to game design school and have friends in the industry who have had to make IP's quite often that they don't like, only because it's their job and it's what sells.
But the game designer did offer a choice. Right at the beginning of the game. You could choose to skip the morally questionable content or not. The problem that no one will admit to is that even if we view ourselves with very high moral fiber, there are very few who would actually NOT want to see what this morally questionable content is once they see a warning like this. So, in that moment we make a choice... to allow our curiosity to be satiated by something some view as imorral or to put the blinders on and hope we didn't miss something interesting.
Again I'd like to say that if you feel a real moral dilemma over something a video game character is doing you need to put the games away and rejoin the real world.
I am a sadistic bastard. I loved the no Russian level. It was fun. I laughed gleefully as I mowed people down because I was like "wow I can't believe they are allowing this." I would never do such a thing in real life of course You don't know that. If you enjoy doing it in a game (as you admit), then you might well do it in real life, as long as you know you will not suffer any consequences from doing so. but it was a fun surprise. People need to realize it's just a game. Its not real. What about violent TV shows, movies, books, and the like?
There is a moral difference between watching someone else commit evil, and doing it yourself.
MMO_Doubter you are one of the people who shouldnt play video games. You have a tough time seperating reality from fiction.
Playing a video game is never something that should be looked at in terms of "This is something I'd like to do in real life." It's more like watching a movie that's interactive, you become a part of the action making it more engrossing, and should never be looked at as a real life scenario.
I agree that there is a huge moral differance between watching someone commit an act of immorality and commiting one yourself. Watching Arny mow down people in the Terminator movies was not watching an act of immorality. It was me watching a science fiction movie. Not real.
Playing Grand Theft Auto is not me commiting acts of immorality it is me becoming engorssed in a crime game. Not real.
Learn to seperate reality from fiction. - This is a huge problem in our society these days.
Originally posted by Babylon9000 Learn to seperate reality from fiction. - This is a huge problem in our society these days.
People finding entertainment in harmful (to others) activities is a much worse one.
If you enjoy performing evil acts in a game, then you do, indeed, have a problem.
I can see both sides of this "disagreement" we all seem to be having here.
While I wholeheartedly agree that a game is NOT reality (and neither are motion pictures), one is passive and one is interactive. If passively watching a motion picture were the best training device for battle, then the military wouldn't use video games and interactive media in their training programs. They would simply sit them down and have them watch films. Human beings tend to learn more effectively when they are not just seeing, but having other senses immersed in the learning process as well.
Interactive, hands on participation in ANYTHING, whether a game or cooking, for that matter, conditions you better to perform the REAL task you're learning much better than simply watching a film about it. This is a combination of training the muscles (motor skills) to react and act, and training the mind to perceive and respond. It's even used in grade school classrooms on computers to help children to more easily learn even basic mathematical skills.
Don't you suppose there is a reason these methods are being used more and more? They're used....because short term studies show that they WORK.
In your above statement, however, I underlined two words....."enjoy" and "evil." I underline these words because they are the operative words, in my opinion, in that sentence.
If you are playing a video game and you "enjoy" some "evil" act (let's use a crime against children as an example, because I think pretty much everyone can agree on THAT being "evil").....say you're stabbing a child with a bayonnet in a war game, or even more horrific, raping one of the enemy's female children....whatever.....if you ENJOY THIS, even in the context of a GAME.....I would have to say that there is quite possibly something askew within your personality at the very least. I don't think it's generally without some form of social aberration that one could find those things "enjoyable," even when the actions are not "real."
BUT....this conclusion brings us RIGHT BACK to square one. If "immoral" (for lack of a better word) behavior in a video game has a cause and effect real life consequence.....I believe it predominantly originates with PRE-EXISTING psychological pathology. A mentally healthy individual will not suddenly be turned into a mass murderer as a result of playing an interactive video game.
Yet I wonder what the research would show if that SAME mentally healthy individual was isolated outside of normal social relationships, and intentionally conditioned via this interactive means, TO become a killer (something akin to how the military conditions recruits to "acceptable and needful killing")? A purposeful conditioning using these means to train anyone for anything, according to research, seems to show promise, at least at the short term level. This is why it's used by the military for both warfare and flight simulation (and even helping those with post traumatic stress), and....in a different form....in the public school system to teach other types of things. It's called "Immersion Training." (Immersion Training uses a combination of real life role-playing AND virtual play).
There are no LONG TERM studies (spanning 20 years or more), as of yet, to show the long range outcome of such immersion training or therapy. So really....our whole conversation here is really, on both sides, heavily laced with speculation.
Originally posted by Babylon9000 Learn to seperate reality from fiction. - This is a huge problem in our society these days.
People finding entertainment in harmful (to others) activities is a much worse one.
If you enjoy performing evil acts in a game, then you do, indeed, have a problem.
While the highlighted statement above, is INDEED true. It is also true that a huge problem in our society is in not realizing the power of the mind itself.
"Brainwashing," of ANY KIND is a very powerful conditioning tool.
Example: Why do you suppose it is SO DAMN DIFFICULT for someone that was raised a fundamental Christian, to open their minds to examine ANY other possibilities for the origins of life outside of creationism? And before people start saying, "Because they're idiots," let me remind you that they have been completely IMMERSED in this belief system, many of them, from birth.
If you are told something over and over and over again....eventually, your mind assimilates it as "fact." In the military, they taught us this as a type of interrogation technique. Repetitive "conditioning" to the mind is a very powerful tool that can be used for health and well-being, as well as for destructive purposes.
I think people greatly underestimate the power of the human mind, and also it's inherent weakness to constant suggestion, whether subliminal or outright.
Nice points, i always found it funny how the game tries to paint you as "the hero"
"Their not dead, just arrested and telported away" Say the guy gunning down Hellions with a assault riffle and flaming hands.
"their just mindless monsters," say the Paladin cutting up Orc, and Goblins in a Hoarde Camp. "Their aliens, this is a hostile world!" rationalizes the Tauren mage char broling humans.
"The Asians does not value life the way we do"
"The Slavs are sub-humans"
"The only good Indian is a dead Indian"
"The wogs begin at Calais"
Making your enemy less than you is a time tested method of breaking down moral taboos against killing fellow humans.
And unless there were video games for the last 6000+ years, your point is?
Nice points, i always found it funny how the game tries to paint you as "the hero"
"Their not dead, just arrested and telported away" Say the guy gunning down Hellions with a assault riffle and flaming hands.
"their just mindless monsters," say the Paladin cutting up Orc, and Goblins in a Hoarde Camp. "Their aliens, this is a hostile world!" rationalizes the Tauren mage char broling humans.
"The Asians does not value life the way we do"
"The Slavs are sub-humans"
"The only good Indian is a dead Indian"
"The wogs begin at Calais"
Making your enemy less than you is a time tested method of breaking down moral taboos against killing fellow humans.
And unless there were video games for the last 6000+ years, your point is?
Simple. "Thinging" people is the first step to removing most peoples inherent restrictions about brutalizing, killing them. Look at past history as an example. By the time of Vietnam, 90% plus of the soldiers had been effectively conditioned to kill. Before that point, one of the major "problems"(from the political/military leaderships perspective) was that the majority would only fire their weapons in the *general direction* of the enemy.
Look at current police training as an additional example. All too many have no problem what so ever making *any* "perp" do the "electron dance"(use of taser). In fact, use of the taser is so far out of control, its become second nature to far too many. After all, its non lethal(which WAY too many translate to non harmful). Leaving entirely aside that people HAVE died from the use of tasers.(go to YouTube as an example and check out the large number of such brutality videos).
Is this the type of behavior that should be encouraged in a free societies peace officers? Or is it more akin to what one would expect of a repressive societies enforcer class? At what point does a police department stop being peace officers, and become little more than an army of occupation? Its all about the perceptions and expectations of the public and the military/police. Gamers, like it or not ARE part of that public. Sure its "only a game", but in some contexts its much, much more.
Nice points, i always found it funny how the game tries to paint you as "the hero"
"Their not dead, just arrested and telported away" Say the guy gunning down Hellions with a assault riffle and flaming hands.
"their just mindless monsters," say the Paladin cutting up Orc, and Goblins in a Hoarde Camp. "Their aliens, this is a hostile world!" rationalizes the Tauren mage char broling humans.
"The Asians does not value life the way we do"
"The Slavs are sub-humans"
"The only good Indian is a dead Indian"
"The wogs begin at Calais"
Making your enemy less than you is a time tested method of breaking down moral taboos against killing fellow humans.
And unless there were video games for the last 6000+ years, your point is?
Simple. "Thinging" people is the first step to removing most peoples inherent restrictions about brutalizing, killing them. Look at past history as an example. By the time of Vietnam, 90% plus of the soldiers had been effectively conditioned to kill. Before that point, one of the major "problems"(from the political/military leaderships perspective) was that the majority would only fire their weapons in the *general direction* of the enemy.
Look at current police training as an additional example. All too many have no problem what so ever making *any* "perp" do the "electron dance"(use of taser). In fact, use of the taser is so far out of control, its become second nature to far too many. After all, its non lethal(which WAY too many translate to non harmful). Leaving entirely aside that people HAVE died from the use of tasers.(go to YouTube as an example and check out the large number of such brutality videos).
Is this the type of behavior that should be encouraged in a free societies peace officers? Or is it more akin to what one would expect of a repressive societies enforcer class? At what point does a police department stop being peace officers, and become little more than an army of occupation? Its all about the perceptions and expectations of the public and the military/police. Gamers, like it or not ARE part of that public. Sure its "only a game", but in some contexts its much, much more.
And again, "dehumanizing" the enemy has been a popular military and social tactic for over 6000 years. So again, video games have nothing to do with it.
Nice points, i always found it funny how the game tries to paint you as "the hero"
"Their not dead, just arrested and telported away" Say the guy gunning down Hellions with a assault riffle and flaming hands.
"their just mindless monsters," say the Paladin cutting up Orc, and Goblins in a Hoarde Camp. "Their aliens, this is a hostile world!" rationalizes the Tauren mage char broling humans.
"The Asians does not value life the way we do"
"The Slavs are sub-humans"
"The only good Indian is a dead Indian"
"The wogs begin at Calais"
Making your enemy less than you is a time tested method of breaking down moral taboos against killing fellow humans.
And unless there were video games for the last 6000+ years, your point is?
Simple. "Thinging" people is the first step to removing most peoples inherent restrictions about brutalizing, killing them. Look at past history as an example. By the time of Vietnam, 90% plus of the soldiers had been effectively conditioned to kill. Before that point, one of the major "problems"(from the political/military leaderships perspective) was that the majority would only fire their weapons in the *general direction* of the enemy.
Look at current police training as an additional example. All too many have no problem what so ever making *any* "perp" do the "electron dance"(use of taser). In fact, use of the taser is so far out of control, its become second nature to far too many. After all, its non lethal(which WAY too many translate to non harmful). Leaving entirely aside that people HAVE died from the use of tasers.(go to YouTube as an example and check out the large number of such brutality videos).
Is this the type of behavior that should be encouraged in a free societies peace officers? Or is it more akin to what one would expect of a repressive societies enforcer class? At what point does a police department stop being peace officers, and become little more than an army of occupation? Its all about the perceptions and expectations of the public and the military/police. Gamers, like it or not ARE part of that public. Sure its "only a game", but in some contexts its much, much more.
And again, "dehumanizing" the enemy has been a popular military and social tactic for over 6000 years. So again, video games have nothing to do with it.
Except that the military(Marines and Army) ARE using such games for training their troops. Games can teach many lessons. Some are overt(small unit tactics, situational awareness and others) others are less overt. Its the less overt ones that should be of concern in civilian settings. Yes, its "only a game", but in some cases it can have a great personal impact on disturbed individuals. Does that mean that I want to see such games banned? NOT IN THE LEAST. Everyone is responsible for their actions/inactions. But minimizing it by saying "its only a game" doesn't address the very real and subtle changes such games can have on perceptions/expectations.
Short of them making a point to point that mission out I'd say no big deal. I can't recall off the top of my head any specific instances but there have been video games (though not many) based off of being the villain and while the missions you recieved may not have been as brutal as slaughtering an airport full of civilians you weren't fighting for good. I tend to think alot along the lines of the ending of the article in that in any "action" based game I play I'm going to be doing things that in my real life I consider pretty attrocious anyway I don't care if you are the "No Russian" terrorist or Snake from Metal Gear, sneaking up behind people to snap there necks is not a noble calling no matter what "side" you are on.
Again I think had they not made it a point to ask if people wanted to do the missions it would not have even caused quite the stir that it has.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Originally posted by SnarlingWolfOriginally posted by Angelof2070
This is sad... Growing up with violent movies/games, I'm not one to say much about most things...
But the "it's just a game" mantra is getting a little ridiculous. It's not just a game. It is well-known in social sciences that people who become desensitized to violence become more aggressive. While this won't spark something as ridiculous as what Modern Warfare shows (virtual Genocide) it is certainly not healthy for society and is quite barbaric. It's one thing when the horde of enemies are murderous thugs or "evil goblins" or an honorable war. But to kill defenseless civilians who scream and cry out for mercy? It's just taking it too far.
What's next? A virtual torture game where you win the level once you get the information out of your victim? Enough is enough. Corporate greed needs to back off and take their hands off their wallets for a second and consider something most of us like to call: Dignity. Because the only reason they did this is because it sells.
I look down on Shameless Corporate Greed. If you're gonna be greedy... at least have a little respect for yourself and the society you pollute.
First of all, wrong. There were a few flawed studies that showed a connection between watching violence and being more violent as a child (no studies showed the correlation in adults, or bothered to restudy the children once they were adults). But many more studies showed that there was NOT a direct correlation between video game violence and real world aggression/violence. So nice try on that one.
We can't spend life sheltering people for how horrific parts of life are, that is what truly desensitizes people.
I am not wrong. I am a real Psychologist who follows scholarly journals based on real science. You on the other hand I guarantee get all your news of such studies from DATELINE episodes of "Do video games cause violence? The Columbine Massacre."
Epic fail. Saying "First of all, wrong!" doesn't make the facts go away. In fact, it just shows everyone else that you truly don't know what you're talking about.
Second, not allowing mass-murder and horrific violence in video games isn't sheltering people. It's in fact the exact opposite- purposefully feeding them aggression, violence, and what all people would be considered "evil". The middle ground would be to not purposefully shelter them from it, but not purposefully feed it to them either.
Also, sheltering people from horror in NO WAY desensitizes people to it. In fact, sheltered people will find it SIGNIFICANTLY more "horrific" than someone who wasn't sheltered. Sheltering others will make them MORE sensitive to things (often considered overly-sensitive) which is the opposite of desensitizing them.
Couch Potato Psychology FTL.
Please leave it to the experts who actually study these fields with real scientific studies... not internet rumors, DATELINE commercials, and common ignorance.
I won't argue anymore than this post though. What are your credentials in psychology or sociology? None?
I actually have a degree in it, and real evidence not random assumptions. Seriously... since when does sheltering people DESENSITIZE them? LoL.../
Maybe its not popular or perhaps a little sexist, but
I think the base of the problem is with, well, mostly young men. They are usually very bad empaths, always want to swing their 'e-coc.ks' around, are loud and abound, unsensitive and crave violence. Among each other that might fall on good terms, but to me its just a primitive bunch of nerds Id rather stay clear off . Also met a sparse few girls/women like it, but still more reasonable usually
Bearded older men are more often the kind, gentle spirits who you can drink tea and have a fine christmas dinner with ^^ ( And yes, that was a compliment especially made for Mr.Jennings + the others I know in my life)
Hope I didnt upset anyone, Im personally just a little fed up with dealing with the 'target audience' myself .
I played though MW2 and that mission was not an issue. Sure you killed a bunch of "people" but not really. All I did really was kill a bunch of 0s and 1s. They are not real people, they are not real guns, they are 1s and 0s. PERIOD.
Its a video game, its not real. Parents need to pay attention to what their kids are doing, their is too much of this blame everyone but myself shit going around.
I just cannot understand why people get so worked up over something that is not real. It is not real at all, you cannot get shot a bunch of times and still live, it just does not work that way.
Originally posted by SnarlingWolfOriginally posted by Angelof2070
This is sad... Growing up with violent movies/games, I'm not one to say much about most things...
But the "it's just a game" mantra is getting a little ridiculous. It's not just a game. It is well-known in social sciences that people who become desensitized to violence become more aggressive. While this won't spark something as ridiculous as what Modern Warfare shows (virtual Genocide) it is certainly not healthy for society and is quite barbaric. It's one thing when the horde of enemies are murderous thugs or "evil goblins" or an honorable war. But to kill defenseless civilians who scream and cry out for mercy? It's just taking it too far.
What's next? A virtual torture game where you win the level once you get the information out of your victim? Enough is enough. Corporate greed needs to back off and take their hands off their wallets for a second and consider something most of us like to call: Dignity. Because the only reason they did this is because it sells.
I look down on Shameless Corporate Greed. If you're gonna be greedy... at least have a little respect for yourself and the society you pollute.
First of all, wrong. There were a few flawed studies that showed a connection between watching violence and being more violent as a child (no studies showed the correlation in adults, or bothered to restudy the children once they were adults). But many more studies showed that there was NOT a direct correlation between video game violence and real world aggression/violence. So nice try on that one.
We can't spend life sheltering people for how horrific parts of life are, that is what truly desensitizes people.
I am not wrong. I am a real Psychologist who follows scholarly journals based on real science. You on the other hand I guarantee get all your news of such studies from DATELINE episodes of "Do video games cause violence? The Columbine Massacre."
Epic fail. Saying "First of all, wrong!" doesn't make the facts go away. In fact, it just shows everyone else that you truly don't know what you're talking about.
Second, not allowing mass-murder and horrific violence in video games isn't sheltering people. It's in fact the exact opposite- purposefully feeding them aggression, violence, and what all people would be considered "evil". The middle ground would be to not purposefully shelter them from it, but not purposefully feed it to them either.
Also, sheltering people from horror in NO WAY desensitizes people to it. In fact, sheltered people will find it SIGNIFICANTLY more "horrific" than someone who wasn't sheltered. Sheltering others will make them MORE sensitive to things (often considered overly-sensitive) which is the opposite of desensitizing them.
Couch Potato Psychology FTL.
Please leave it to the experts who actually study these fields with real scientific studies... not internet rumors, DATELINE commercials, and common ignorance.
I won't argue anymore than this post though. What are your credentials in psychology or sociology? None?
I actually have a degree in it, and real evidence not random assumptions. Seriously... since when does sheltering people DESENSITIZE them? LoL.../
How can video games cause violence? Seriously it makes no sense. Violence has been around since the dawn of man not the dawn of video games.
Let me ask you one question. Since you seem to think you are smart or something.
If one million people play the same video game and one person goes out and shoots up a school. Can you explain to me how it was the video game that cause this to happen? Since only 1 out of 1 million did the shooting?
It makes no sense. Video games, music, movies cannot cause people to be violent only violent people can cause violence.
Originally posted by SnarlingWolfOriginally posted by Angelof2070
This is sad... Growing up with violent movies/games, I'm not one to say much about most things...
But the "it's just a game" mantra is getting a little ridiculous. It's not just a game. It is well-known in social sciences that people who become desensitized to violence become more aggressive. While this won't spark something as ridiculous as what Modern Warfare shows (virtual Genocide) it is certainly not healthy for society and is quite barbaric. It's one thing when the horde of enemies are murderous thugs or "evil goblins" or an honorable war. But to kill defenseless civilians who scream and cry out for mercy? It's just taking it too far.
What's next? A virtual torture game where you win the level once you get the information out of your victim? Enough is enough. Corporate greed needs to back off and take their hands off their wallets for a second and consider something most of us like to call: Dignity. Because the only reason they did this is because it sells.
I look down on Shameless Corporate Greed. If you're gonna be greedy... at least have a little respect for yourself and the society you pollute.
First of all, wrong. There were a few flawed studies that showed a connection between watching violence and being more violent as a child (no studies showed the correlation in adults, or bothered to restudy the children once they were adults). But many more studies showed that there was NOT a direct correlation between video game violence and real world aggression/violence. So nice try on that one.
We can't spend life sheltering people for how horrific parts of life are, that is what truly desensitizes people.
I am not wrong. I am a real Psychologist who follows scholarly journals based on real science. You on the other hand I guarantee get all your news of such studies from DATELINE episodes of "Do video games cause violence? The Columbine Massacre."
Epic fail. Saying "First of all, wrong!" doesn't make the facts go away. In fact, it just shows everyone else that you truly don't know what you're talking about.
Second, not allowing mass-murder and horrific violence in video games isn't sheltering people. It's in fact the exact opposite- purposefully feeding them aggression, violence, and what all people would be considered "evil". The middle ground would be to not purposefully shelter them from it, but not purposefully feed it to them either.
Also, sheltering people from horror in NO WAY desensitizes people to it. In fact, sheltered people will find it SIGNIFICANTLY more "horrific" than someone who wasn't sheltered. Sheltering others will make them MORE sensitive to things (often considered overly-sensitive) which is the opposite of desensitizing them.
Couch Potato Psychology FTL.
Please leave it to the experts who actually study these fields with real scientific studies... not internet rumors, DATELINE commercials, and common ignorance.
I won't argue anymore than this post though. What are your credentials in psychology or sociology? None?
I actually have a degree in it, and real evidence not random assumptions. Seriously... since when does sheltering people DESENSITIZE them? LoL.../
How can video games cause violence? Seriously it makes no sense. Violence has been around since the dawn of man not the dawn of video games.
Let me ask you one question. Since you seem to think you are smart or something.
If one million people play the same video game and one person goes out and shoots up a school. Can you explain to me how it was the video game that cause this to happen? Since only 1 out of 1 million did the shooting?
It makes no sense. Video games, music, movies cannot cause people to be violent only violent people can cause violence.
Video games(books, etc) do not *cause* violence, in and of themselves. But they can influence peoples internal mental processes(for good or ill). What choices people make determine if their actions are good or evil. Saying something like "its only a game" is much akin to saying that the bible is "only a book". Both are true, after a fashion. But neither takes in to account the impact they can have on people. Once again, I do NOT want such games banned. But people *are* responsible for their actions/in actions.
Originally posted by SnarlingWolfOriginally posted by Angelof2070
This is sad... Growing up with violent movies/games, I'm not one to say much about most things...
But the "it's just a game" mantra is getting a little ridiculous. It's not just a game. It is well-known in social sciences that people who become desensitized to violence become more aggressive. While this won't spark something as ridiculous as what Modern Warfare shows (virtual Genocide) it is certainly not healthy for society and is quite barbaric. It's one thing when the horde of enemies are murderous thugs or "evil goblins" or an honorable war. But to kill defenseless civilians who scream and cry out for mercy? It's just taking it too far.
What's next? A virtual torture game where you win the level once you get the information out of your victim? Enough is enough. Corporate greed needs to back off and take their hands off their wallets for a second and consider something most of us like to call: Dignity. Because the only reason they did this is because it sells.
I look down on Shameless Corporate Greed. If you're gonna be greedy... at least have a little respect for yourself and the society you pollute.
First of all, wrong. There were a few flawed studies that showed a connection between watching violence and being more violent as a child (no studies showed the correlation in adults, or bothered to restudy the children once they were adults). But many more studies showed that there was NOT a direct correlation between video game violence and real world aggression/violence. So nice try on that one.
We can't spend life sheltering people for how horrific parts of life are, that is what truly desensitizes people.
I am not wrong. I am a real Psychologist who follows scholarly journals based on real science. You on the other hand I guarantee get all your news of such studies from DATELINE episodes of "Do video games cause violence? The Columbine Massacre."
Epic fail. Saying "First of all, wrong!" doesn't make the facts go away. In fact, it just shows everyone else that you truly don't know what you're talking about.
Second, not allowing mass-murder and horrific violence in video games isn't sheltering people. It's in fact the exact opposite- purposefully feeding them aggression, violence, and what all people would be considered "evil". The middle ground would be to not purposefully shelter them from it, but not purposefully feed it to them either.
Also, sheltering people from horror in NO WAY desensitizes people to it. In fact, sheltered people will find it SIGNIFICANTLY more "horrific" than someone who wasn't sheltered. Sheltering others will make them MORE sensitive to things (often considered overly-sensitive) which is the opposite of desensitizing them.
Couch Potato Psychology FTL.
Please leave it to the experts who actually study these fields with real scientific studies... not internet rumors, DATELINE commercials, and common ignorance.
I won't argue anymore than this post though. What are your credentials in psychology or sociology? None?
I actually have a degree in it, and real evidence not random assumptions. Seriously... since when does sheltering people DESENSITIZE them? LoL.../
How can video games cause violence? Seriously it makes no sense. Violence has been around since the dawn of man not the dawn of video games.
Let me ask you one question. Since you seem to think you are smart or something.
If one million people play the same video game and one person goes out and shoots up a school. Can you explain to me how it was the video game that cause this to happen? Since only 1 out of 1 million did the shooting?
It makes no sense. Video games, music, movies cannot cause people to be violent only violent people can cause violence.
Video games(books, etc) do not *cause* violence, in and of themselves. But they can influence peoples internal mental processes(for good or ill). What choices people make determine if their actions are good or evil. Saying something like "its only a game" is much akin to saying that the bible is "only a book". Both are true, after a fashion. But neither takes in to account the impact they can have on people. Once again, I do NOT want such games banned. But people *are* responsible for their actions/in actions.
Yes "PEOPLE" are responsible for their actions not video games, not movies, not music. PEOPLE.
It is only a game and the Bible is only a book. Those are facts. People choose how to react to those things. They cannot influence people unless they want to be influence by them. A person is going to comit violence if that is what they want to do, they will blame (along with the media) whatever they want to blame. People do not take responsiblity for their actions anymore.
The problem I have with people like yourself is that you believe that games, movies, books, ect can influence people to do bad things, that simply is not true, bad people do bad things. Period. No outside influence is needed.
Violence has been around as long as humans. Humans are violent by nature. That is just how it is, we as humans forget that we are nothing more then animals. We want to believe we are more then just animals but we are not.
Yes "PEOPLE" are responsible for their actions not video games, not movies, not music. PEOPLE. It is only a game and the Bible is only a book. Those are facts. People choose how to react to those things. They cannot influence people unless they want to be influence by them. A person is going to comit violence if that is what they want to do, they will blame (along with the media) whatever they want to blame. People do not take responsiblity for their actions anymore. The problem I have with people like yourself is that you believe that games, movies, books, ect can influence people to do bad things, that simply is not true, bad people do bad things. Can books inspire people to do good things? Do you dispute the concept of role models? Period. No outside influence is needed. Violence has been around as long as humans. Humans are violent by nature. That is just how it is, we as humans forget that we are nothing more then animals. We want to believe we are more then just animals but we are not.
We are more than animals. Animals don't have morals. Animals have no concept of the future. Animals aren't aware of their own mortality.
Yours is the philosophy of the sociopath.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Yes "PEOPLE" are responsible for their actions not video games, not movies, not music. PEOPLE. It is only a game and the Bible is only a book. Those are facts. People choose how to react to those things. They cannot influence people unless they want to be influence by them. A person is going to comit violence if that is what they want to do, they will blame (along with the media) whatever they want to blame. People do not take responsiblity for their actions anymore. The problem I have with people like yourself is that you believe that games, movies, books, ect can influence people to do bad things, that simply is not true, bad people do bad things. Can books inspire people to do good things? Do you dispute the concept of role models? Period. No outside influence is needed. Violence has been around as long as humans. Humans are violent by nature. That is just how it is, we as humans forget that we are nothing more then animals. We want to believe we are more then just animals but we are not.
We are more than animals. Animals don't have morals. Animals have no concept of the future. Animals aren't aware of their own mortality.
Yours is the philosophy of the sociopath.
No books cannot inspire people to do good things unless they are looking to be inspired. Again a weak minded person will be easier influenced then a strong minded person. Its not a hard concept. Its along the same lines as peer presure.
Yes I dispute the concept of role models. Again unless the person is looking for someone to learn from or follow then a role model is nothing.
I had "hero's" growing up but they were not my role models, if anyone was my role model it was my father and that is because I do want to be like him. My parents taugh me to think for myself and not to be a follower and to not bend to others peoples wills.
My philosophy? How do you know what my philosophy is?
Humans are animals. It is pretty common knowledge that we are animals. We maybe more aware of ourselfs then other animals but it does not change the fact that we are animals.
Again we as humans try to pretend we are more then animals. My dog has morals, she does not attack other dogs, she is friendly towards people that she knows. She knows right from wrong. My dog has a sense of the future, she knows when I am going to come home from work, she is always waiting at the door when I come home. She would not be waiting at the door when I got home unless she had a concept of time. (my roommate currently is out of work and says that my dog will come to the door about 5 to 10 minutes before I pull into the drive way.)
Comments
This topic is way too sticky to get into without delving into some pretty intense topics. Perhaps we could go deep into psychology or even sociology, find a primal need to conquer through brute force that has been largely suppressed in modern society. When was the last time you had to pillage and raze another village just to eat for another week? When was the last time your tribe had to go wipe out that other tribe over a well or some other vital resource?
And this is just some idle armchair speculation of the issue. I am very confidant that it goes much, much further.
As far as saying we feel nothing based on what we see in a video game, that's sad. Not because I think it makes others heartless or anything retarded like that. I think it is sad because it remains one of the reasons that games can't be more than cheap, disposable entertainment for the masses. As long as people don't try to project into the game even a little bit, or suspend disbelief enough to analyze how they'd feel in similar situations, they'll never find a game that actually engages them like great works of literature, movies, etc. can.
But, whatever. To each their own.
So, I'm curious - what is the 'right' answer, or is the answer used to determine duty assignments?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
There is a moral difference between watching someone else commit evil, and doing it yourself.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
So, I'm curious - what is the 'right' answer, or is the answer used to determine duty assignments?
The "right" answer depends on the individual. One suspects that what those behind the surveys are looking for is personnel who will follow orders, no matter what is involved. That has its own implications. While the UCMJ is official doctrine, following orders is safer personally and professionally.
There is a moral difference between watching someone else commit evil, and doing it yourself.
Your last comment...about the difference between WATCHING evil and doing it yourself, made me think of this.
I absolutely unashamedly enjoy the Showtime series called DEXTER. I have watched every single episode of every season to date. I find it to be fantastically creative writing and one of very few compelling television shows on today. For those that have been living in a cave and don't know....DEXTER is the story of a serial killer. And some of the scenes in the show are bloody horrible and brutally graphic. You could reason this away with, "Yes, but Dex only kills people who kill innocent people. He's really a vigilante." And while that might be true....the WAY he "takes justice into his own hands," can be really frightfully awful, to be honest.
Would I PLAY Dexter in a game and....in a game....kill people and chop them into bits and throw their body parts into the ocean? Uhmmmm.....no. I would not be at all interested in a game like that or in roleplaying a violent criminal. But...admittedly....that is just ME and how I personally feel about the difference between interactively ACTING OUT the role of a serial killer, and watching one on a story on television. Acting it out, and actually being in control of a character that does those things....would probably make me vomit.
Killing other human beings isn't the same, to ME, as killing elves, orcs, and dragons, or other assorted fairytale creatures. This is also why I don't really enjoy PvP as an over all style of play, although I have done it.....some. And it's definitely why I don't play ANY....that's zero, nada, zip....war games. To me....war isn't a good game "topic."
Now I realize that a LOT...a whole lot....of gamers do not share my feelings and thoughts about this, and I'm perfectly okay with that. But I also think there are a great many gamers that DO think and feel the same way I do about this.
I absolutely think in a game, a gamer should be given multiple choices about how to handle things....much like in Fable. That would ALWAYS be my preference. If a game FORCES me into doing something that is outside my own moral code....I probably won't be very drawn to play that game. Granted....this is just ME here. I don't feel it's my job to determine someone else's sense of morality (if we MUST use that particular word). At the end of the day...I don't have to live with anyone's conscience but my OWN. Yes....I know games aren't real, the same way as I know television shows and movies aren't real. But I simply don't feel it's a healthy choice, for me, to interactively play a human being brutalizing other human beings, whether that's re-enacting war, or something more sinister, like in the game "Manhunt," or "Postal 2," or whatever. Those kind of games don't appeal to me.
Just more evidence that gamers are as different as snowflakes...after all....we're human. No two of us are identical in the way we game or in the way we PERCEIVE games. And I don't agree with censorship, even if I don't choose to participate in the potential object OF censorship.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Exactly... and I think all this relates to something else... boredom. The people who spout the mantra "it's just a game"... are the same people who post in other threads "why are MMOs so boring? I don't FEEL anything when I play them". duh. You've turned it off, so of course you are not going to feel anything but disconnected... clicking through drudgery .... it's like the modern slasher/gore movies; not nearly as entertaining and engaging as the old black-and-white Hitchcock movies that didn't show that much of anything really...
immersion, choice, identifying with the characters, feeling guilt, hate, joy, fear, etc. That's what is MISSING in games today. The number of people that can easily say "it's just a game" is directly proportional to the failure of the industry.... imo.
I guess I wouldn't care to play the No Russian level only because the game is forcing me into a behavior that I would never condone or do. Had they put it in and made all choices a win, whether it be from slaughtering the civilians or shooting the terrorists I'd have no problem with it. But the fact that designers make you lose the scenario for choosing to do the right thing is annoying to me.
I'm not likely to ever play this game (if its not an MMORPG, its not a game to me) but if I ever do I'll be sure to heed their warning and opt out of that mission. Thanks for the heads up.
As far as morality goes, I do feel that a lot of players in MMO's exhibit sociopathic tendencies and I do feel it probably represents how they are in real life somewhat.(even if real life's punishments and consequences helps them stay in check)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
no i really don't care whether i win or not, i really just play it then log off, sorry if that's weird but then again i'm not all that sane =P also i have only finished 2 games ever, like i said i just buy something play it off and on then ditch it. Even in mmo's i get so many hours a week, don't care about progress, just something to do.
Once you put it like that fun or not fun i guess that would be the most emotion i show with a video game, still no attachment, i don't get mad if a game is bad, i don't scream i wasted money on such and such terrible game, guess i'm dull when it comes to gaming -shrugs-
i would agree people are decensitized to violence and stuff, but hey it doesn't bother me one bit, i don't sit here and think about harming people or hating people. Too many other important things out there then to waste emotions on video games or similar things in general.
oh and on the subject of fun, i rarely get excited if something is fun, i'm pretty much like hey this is fun, not HEY THIS IS FUN!!!!
You know....you actually sound very stable. Reminds me of my ex-husband. He was like a rock. He was a wonderful person (we were actually friends for years and years after our divorce until he moved to another state). There wasn't anything "wrong" with him, he just wasn't a very "emoting" kind of person.
He wasn't mentally ill, a sociopath, or cold-hearted. He was just very reserved. His favorite game was DOOM, and he loved killing demons....lol. 
I don't think you're weird for the way you, personally, use video games as a time filler for "something to do." Nothing wrong with that at all.
You're probably a good example of ...."We're all different." Just because someone is different than me, or you, doesn't make them less valid in any way.
This is why censorship in gaming is such a ridiculous idea at the bottom line. People are like snowflakes....no two are IDENTICAL. And while a certain video game may not be my personal "cup of tea," it certainly shouldn't prevent anyone else from enjoying it. While it may contain "emotional triggers" for me....that doesn't mean it does for EVERYONE and the opposite can also be said.
Mental illness is an ENTIRELY different topic. This is where the people that want to get rid of violence in games, seem confused, I think. Without treading on the rights of the vast majority to choose their own form of entertainment, whether that is movies, art, games, or golf....there is no way to prevent "bad things" from happening within the minority. If we babysit society to the point of taking away CHOICES....it's not going to prevent people from still doing what they want to do, ultimately.
And before someone says, "but it would only be taking away choices in video game entertainment...." right. That's how freedom is eroded....one right at a time. The price we, as a society, have to pay for some of our freedoms....is that some people aren't going to be able to HANDLE those freedoms responsibly. But, like I said, we cannot "babysit" society without it eventually becoming a state of martial law. The price for freedom is that sometimes....there will be problems. Sometimes those problems will be big. But it's not worth, in my opinion, giving up the right to make choices.
Life is just not so black and white.
Nice post except the point myself and some have been trying to make is not censor anyone persay but to at least give choices of right and wrong moral choices. There is no good excuse for a game designer to force a gamer to choose only one moral decision path based on his/her views of the world. 1st amendment aside, if that game designer wants the game to sell to a wide audience, then they have to give options or fail. If you as a gamer chose to support that game just because everyone else buys it or there is nothing else to do, or you are immoral anyhow...then maybe that gamer needs to do a reality check. If game designers get sent a message of no sales for games like that they will change their type of IP they make whether they like it or not.
I know because I have been to game design school and have friends in the industry who have had to make IP's quite often that they don't like, only because it's their job and it's what sells.
But the game designer did offer a choice. Right at the beginning of the game. You could choose to skip the morally questionable content or not. The problem that no one will admit to is that even if we view ourselves with very high moral fiber, there are very few who would actually NOT want to see what this morally questionable content is once they see a warning like this. So, in that moment we make a choice... to allow our curiosity to be satiated by something some view as imorral or to put the blinders on and hope we didn't miss something interesting.
Again I'd like to say that if you feel a real moral dilemma over something a video game character is doing you need to put the games away and rejoin the real world.
Seperate reality from fantasy.
There is a moral difference between watching someone else commit evil, and doing it yourself.
MMO_Doubter you are one of the people who shouldnt play video games. You have a tough time seperating reality from fiction.
Playing a video game is never something that should be looked at in terms of "This is something I'd like to do in real life." It's more like watching a movie that's interactive, you become a part of the action making it more engrossing, and should never be looked at as a real life scenario.
I agree that there is a huge moral differance between watching someone commit an act of immorality and commiting one yourself. Watching Arny mow down people in the Terminator movies was not watching an act of immorality. It was me watching a science fiction movie. Not real.
Playing Grand Theft Auto is not me commiting acts of immorality it is me becoming engorssed in a crime game. Not real.
Learn to seperate reality from fiction. - This is a huge problem in our society these days.
People finding entertainment in harmful (to others) activities is a much worse one.
If you enjoy performing evil acts in a game, then you do, indeed, have a problem.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
People finding entertainment in harmful (to others) activities is a much worse one.
If you enjoy performing evil acts in a game, then you do, indeed, have a problem.
I can see both sides of this "disagreement" we all seem to be having here.
While I wholeheartedly agree that a game is NOT reality (and neither are motion pictures), one is passive and one is interactive. If passively watching a motion picture were the best training device for battle, then the military wouldn't use video games and interactive media in their training programs. They would simply sit them down and have them watch films. Human beings tend to learn more effectively when they are not just seeing, but having other senses immersed in the learning process as well.
Interactive, hands on participation in ANYTHING, whether a game or cooking, for that matter, conditions you better to perform the REAL task you're learning much better than simply watching a film about it. This is a combination of training the muscles (motor skills) to react and act, and training the mind to perceive and respond. It's even used in grade school classrooms on computers to help children to more easily learn even basic mathematical skills.
Don't you suppose there is a reason these methods are being used more and more? They're used....because short term studies show that they WORK.
In your above statement, however, I underlined two words....."enjoy" and "evil." I underline these words because they are the operative words, in my opinion, in that sentence.
If you are playing a video game and you "enjoy" some "evil" act (let's use a crime against children as an example, because I think pretty much everyone can agree on THAT being "evil").....say you're stabbing a child with a bayonnet in a war game, or even more horrific, raping one of the enemy's female children....whatever.....if you ENJOY THIS, even in the context of a GAME.....I would have to say that there is quite possibly something askew within your personality at the very least. I don't think it's generally without some form of social aberration that one could find those things "enjoyable," even when the actions are not "real."
BUT....this conclusion brings us RIGHT BACK to square one. If "immoral" (for lack of a better word) behavior in a video game has a cause and effect real life consequence.....I believe it predominantly originates with PRE-EXISTING psychological pathology. A mentally healthy individual will not suddenly be turned into a mass murderer as a result of playing an interactive video game.
Yet I wonder what the research would show if that SAME mentally healthy individual was isolated outside of normal social relationships, and intentionally conditioned via this interactive means, TO become a killer (something akin to how the military conditions recruits to "acceptable and needful killing")? A purposeful conditioning using these means to train anyone for anything, according to research, seems to show promise, at least at the short term level. This is why it's used by the military for both warfare and flight simulation (and even helping those with post traumatic stress), and....in a different form....in the public school system to teach other types of things. It's called "Immersion Training." (Immersion Training uses a combination of real life role-playing AND virtual play).
There are no LONG TERM studies (spanning 20 years or more), as of yet, to show the long range outcome of such immersion training or therapy. So really....our whole conversation here is really, on both sides, heavily laced with speculation.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
People finding entertainment in harmful (to others) activities is a much worse one.
If you enjoy performing evil acts in a game, then you do, indeed, have a problem.
While the highlighted statement above, is INDEED true. It is also true that a huge problem in our society is in not realizing the power of the mind itself.
"Brainwashing," of ANY KIND is a very powerful conditioning tool.
Example: Why do you suppose it is SO DAMN DIFFICULT for someone that was raised a fundamental Christian, to open their minds to examine ANY other possibilities for the origins of life outside of creationism? And before people start saying, "Because they're idiots," let me remind you that they have been completely IMMERSED in this belief system, many of them, from birth.
If you are told something over and over and over again....eventually, your mind assimilates it as "fact." In the military, they taught us this as a type of interrogation technique. Repetitive "conditioning" to the mind is a very powerful tool that can be used for health and well-being, as well as for destructive purposes.
I think people greatly underestimate the power of the human mind, and also it's inherent weakness to constant suggestion, whether subliminal or outright.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
"The Asians does not value life the way we do"
"The Slavs are sub-humans"
"The only good Indian is a dead Indian"
"The wogs begin at Calais"
Making your enemy less than you is a time tested method of breaking down moral taboos against killing fellow humans.
And unless there were video games for the last 6000+ years, your point is?
"The Asians does not value life the way we do"
"The Slavs are sub-humans"
"The only good Indian is a dead Indian"
"The wogs begin at Calais"
Making your enemy less than you is a time tested method of breaking down moral taboos against killing fellow humans.
And unless there were video games for the last 6000+ years, your point is?
Simple. "Thinging" people is the first step to removing most peoples inherent restrictions about brutalizing, killing them. Look at past history as an example. By the time of Vietnam, 90% plus of the soldiers had been effectively conditioned to kill. Before that point, one of the major "problems"(from the political/military leaderships perspective) was that the majority would only fire their weapons in the *general direction* of the enemy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology
Look at current police training as an additional example. All too many have no problem what so ever making *any* "perp" do the "electron dance"(use of taser). In fact, use of the taser is so far out of control, its become second nature to far too many. After all, its non lethal(which WAY too many translate to non harmful). Leaving entirely aside that people HAVE died from the use of tasers.(go to YouTube as an example and check out the large number of such brutality videos).
Is this the type of behavior that should be encouraged in a free societies peace officers? Or is it more akin to what one would expect of a repressive societies enforcer class? At what point does a police department stop being peace officers, and become little more than an army of occupation? Its all about the perceptions and expectations of the public and the military/police. Gamers, like it or not ARE part of that public. Sure its "only a game", but in some contexts its much, much more.
"The Asians does not value life the way we do"
"The Slavs are sub-humans"
"The only good Indian is a dead Indian"
"The wogs begin at Calais"
Making your enemy less than you is a time tested method of breaking down moral taboos against killing fellow humans.
And unless there were video games for the last 6000+ years, your point is?
Simple. "Thinging" people is the first step to removing most peoples inherent restrictions about brutalizing, killing them. Look at past history as an example. By the time of Vietnam, 90% plus of the soldiers had been effectively conditioned to kill. Before that point, one of the major "problems"(from the political/military leaderships perspective) was that the majority would only fire their weapons in the *general direction* of the enemy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology
Look at current police training as an additional example. All too many have no problem what so ever making *any* "perp" do the "electron dance"(use of taser). In fact, use of the taser is so far out of control, its become second nature to far too many. After all, its non lethal(which WAY too many translate to non harmful). Leaving entirely aside that people HAVE died from the use of tasers.(go to YouTube as an example and check out the large number of such brutality videos).
Is this the type of behavior that should be encouraged in a free societies peace officers? Or is it more akin to what one would expect of a repressive societies enforcer class? At what point does a police department stop being peace officers, and become little more than an army of occupation? Its all about the perceptions and expectations of the public and the military/police. Gamers, like it or not ARE part of that public. Sure its "only a game", but in some contexts its much, much more.
And again, "dehumanizing" the enemy has been a popular military and social tactic for over 6000 years. So again, video games have nothing to do with it.
"The Asians does not value life the way we do"
"The Slavs are sub-humans"
"The only good Indian is a dead Indian"
"The wogs begin at Calais"
Making your enemy less than you is a time tested method of breaking down moral taboos against killing fellow humans.
And unless there were video games for the last 6000+ years, your point is?
Simple. "Thinging" people is the first step to removing most peoples inherent restrictions about brutalizing, killing them. Look at past history as an example. By the time of Vietnam, 90% plus of the soldiers had been effectively conditioned to kill. Before that point, one of the major "problems"(from the political/military leaderships perspective) was that the majority would only fire their weapons in the *general direction* of the enemy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology
Look at current police training as an additional example. All too many have no problem what so ever making *any* "perp" do the "electron dance"(use of taser). In fact, use of the taser is so far out of control, its become second nature to far too many. After all, its non lethal(which WAY too many translate to non harmful). Leaving entirely aside that people HAVE died from the use of tasers.(go to YouTube as an example and check out the large number of such brutality videos).
Is this the type of behavior that should be encouraged in a free societies peace officers? Or is it more akin to what one would expect of a repressive societies enforcer class? At what point does a police department stop being peace officers, and become little more than an army of occupation? Its all about the perceptions and expectations of the public and the military/police. Gamers, like it or not ARE part of that public. Sure its "only a game", but in some contexts its much, much more.
And again, "dehumanizing" the enemy has been a popular military and social tactic for over 6000 years. So again, video games have nothing to do with it.
Except that the military(Marines and Army) ARE using such games for training their troops. Games can teach many lessons. Some are overt(small unit tactics, situational awareness and others) others are less overt. Its the less overt ones that should be of concern in civilian settings. Yes, its "only a game", but in some cases it can have a great personal impact on disturbed individuals. Does that mean that I want to see such games banned? NOT IN THE LEAST. Everyone is responsible for their actions/inactions. But minimizing it by saying "its only a game" doesn't address the very real and subtle changes such games can have on perceptions/expectations.
Short of them making a point to point that mission out I'd say no big deal. I can't recall off the top of my head any specific instances but there have been video games (though not many) based off of being the villain and while the missions you recieved may not have been as brutal as slaughtering an airport full of civilians you weren't fighting for good. I tend to think alot along the lines of the ending of the article in that in any "action" based game I play I'm going to be doing things that in my real life I consider pretty attrocious anyway I don't care if you are the "No Russian" terrorist or Snake from Metal Gear, sneaking up behind people to snap there necks is not a noble calling no matter what "side" you are on.
Again I think had they not made it a point to ask if people wanted to do the missions it would not have even caused quite the stir that it has.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
First of all, wrong. There were a few flawed studies that showed a connection between watching violence and being more violent as a child (no studies showed the correlation in adults, or bothered to restudy the children once they were adults). But many more studies showed that there was NOT a direct correlation between video game violence and real world aggression/violence. So nice try on that one.
We can't spend life sheltering people for how horrific parts of life are, that is what truly desensitizes people.
I am not wrong. I am a real Psychologist who follows scholarly journals based on real science. You on the other hand I guarantee get all your news of such studies from DATELINE episodes of "Do video games cause violence? The Columbine Massacre."
Epic fail. Saying "First of all, wrong!" doesn't make the facts go away. In fact, it just shows everyone else that you truly don't know what you're talking about.
Second, not allowing mass-murder and horrific violence in video games isn't sheltering people. It's in fact the exact opposite- purposefully feeding them aggression, violence, and what all people would be considered "evil". The middle ground would be to not purposefully shelter them from it, but not purposefully feed it to them either.
Also, sheltering people from horror in NO WAY desensitizes people to it. In fact, sheltered people will find it SIGNIFICANTLY more "horrific" than someone who wasn't sheltered. Sheltering others will make them MORE sensitive to things (often considered overly-sensitive) which is the opposite of desensitizing them.
Couch Potato Psychology FTL.
Please leave it to the experts who actually study these fields with real scientific studies... not internet rumors, DATELINE commercials, and common ignorance.
I won't argue anymore than this post though. What are your credentials in psychology or sociology? None?
I actually have a degree in it, and real evidence not random assumptions. Seriously... since when does sheltering people DESENSITIZE them? LoL.../
I liked reading this article ^^
Maybe its not popular or perhaps a little sexist, but
I think the base of the problem is with, well, mostly young men. They are usually very bad empaths, always want to swing their 'e-coc.ks' around, are loud and abound, unsensitive and crave violence. Among each other that might fall on good terms, but to me its just a primitive bunch of nerds Id rather stay clear off . Also met a sparse few girls/women like it, but still more reasonable usually
Bearded older men are more often the kind, gentle spirits who you can drink tea and have a fine christmas dinner with ^^ ( And yes, that was a compliment especially made for Mr.Jennings + the others I know in my life)
Hope I didnt upset anyone, Im personally just a little fed up with dealing with the 'target audience' myself .
Good Read.
I played though MW2 and that mission was not an issue. Sure you killed a bunch of "people" but not really. All I did really was kill a bunch of 0s and 1s. They are not real people, they are not real guns, they are 1s and 0s. PERIOD.
Its a video game, its not real. Parents need to pay attention to what their kids are doing, their is too much of this blame everyone but myself shit going around.
I just cannot understand why people get so worked up over something that is not real. It is not real at all, you cannot get shot a bunch of times and still live, it just does not work that way.
Sooner or Later
First of all, wrong. There were a few flawed studies that showed a connection between watching violence and being more violent as a child (no studies showed the correlation in adults, or bothered to restudy the children once they were adults). But many more studies showed that there was NOT a direct correlation between video game violence and real world aggression/violence. So nice try on that one.
We can't spend life sheltering people for how horrific parts of life are, that is what truly desensitizes people.
I am not wrong. I am a real Psychologist who follows scholarly journals based on real science. You on the other hand I guarantee get all your news of such studies from DATELINE episodes of "Do video games cause violence? The Columbine Massacre."
Epic fail. Saying "First of all, wrong!" doesn't make the facts go away. In fact, it just shows everyone else that you truly don't know what you're talking about.
Second, not allowing mass-murder and horrific violence in video games isn't sheltering people. It's in fact the exact opposite- purposefully feeding them aggression, violence, and what all people would be considered "evil". The middle ground would be to not purposefully shelter them from it, but not purposefully feed it to them either.
Also, sheltering people from horror in NO WAY desensitizes people to it. In fact, sheltered people will find it SIGNIFICANTLY more "horrific" than someone who wasn't sheltered. Sheltering others will make them MORE sensitive to things (often considered overly-sensitive) which is the opposite of desensitizing them.
Couch Potato Psychology FTL.
Please leave it to the experts who actually study these fields with real scientific studies... not internet rumors, DATELINE commercials, and common ignorance.
I won't argue anymore than this post though. What are your credentials in psychology or sociology? None?
I actually have a degree in it, and real evidence not random assumptions. Seriously... since when does sheltering people DESENSITIZE them? LoL.../
How can video games cause violence? Seriously it makes no sense. Violence has been around since the dawn of man not the dawn of video games.
Let me ask you one question. Since you seem to think you are smart or something.
If one million people play the same video game and one person goes out and shoots up a school. Can you explain to me how it was the video game that cause this to happen? Since only 1 out of 1 million did the shooting?
It makes no sense. Video games, music, movies cannot cause people to be violent only violent people can cause violence.
Sooner or Later
First of all, wrong. There were a few flawed studies that showed a connection between watching violence and being more violent as a child (no studies showed the correlation in adults, or bothered to restudy the children once they were adults). But many more studies showed that there was NOT a direct correlation between video game violence and real world aggression/violence. So nice try on that one.
We can't spend life sheltering people for how horrific parts of life are, that is what truly desensitizes people.
I am not wrong. I am a real Psychologist who follows scholarly journals based on real science. You on the other hand I guarantee get all your news of such studies from DATELINE episodes of "Do video games cause violence? The Columbine Massacre."
Epic fail. Saying "First of all, wrong!" doesn't make the facts go away. In fact, it just shows everyone else that you truly don't know what you're talking about.
Second, not allowing mass-murder and horrific violence in video games isn't sheltering people. It's in fact the exact opposite- purposefully feeding them aggression, violence, and what all people would be considered "evil". The middle ground would be to not purposefully shelter them from it, but not purposefully feed it to them either.
Also, sheltering people from horror in NO WAY desensitizes people to it. In fact, sheltered people will find it SIGNIFICANTLY more "horrific" than someone who wasn't sheltered. Sheltering others will make them MORE sensitive to things (often considered overly-sensitive) which is the opposite of desensitizing them.
Couch Potato Psychology FTL.
Please leave it to the experts who actually study these fields with real scientific studies... not internet rumors, DATELINE commercials, and common ignorance.
I won't argue anymore than this post though. What are your credentials in psychology or sociology? None?
I actually have a degree in it, and real evidence not random assumptions. Seriously... since when does sheltering people DESENSITIZE them? LoL.../
How can video games cause violence? Seriously it makes no sense. Violence has been around since the dawn of man not the dawn of video games.
Let me ask you one question. Since you seem to think you are smart or something.
If one million people play the same video game and one person goes out and shoots up a school. Can you explain to me how it was the video game that cause this to happen? Since only 1 out of 1 million did the shooting?
It makes no sense. Video games, music, movies cannot cause people to be violent only violent people can cause violence.
Video games(books, etc) do not *cause* violence, in and of themselves. But they can influence peoples internal mental processes(for good or ill). What choices people make determine if their actions are good or evil. Saying something like "its only a game" is much akin to saying that the bible is "only a book". Both are true, after a fashion. But neither takes in to account the impact they can have on people. Once again, I do NOT want such games banned. But people *are* responsible for their actions/in actions.
First of all, wrong. There were a few flawed studies that showed a connection between watching violence and being more violent as a child (no studies showed the correlation in adults, or bothered to restudy the children once they were adults). But many more studies showed that there was NOT a direct correlation between video game violence and real world aggression/violence. So nice try on that one.
We can't spend life sheltering people for how horrific parts of life are, that is what truly desensitizes people.
I am not wrong. I am a real Psychologist who follows scholarly journals based on real science. You on the other hand I guarantee get all your news of such studies from DATELINE episodes of "Do video games cause violence? The Columbine Massacre."
Epic fail. Saying "First of all, wrong!" doesn't make the facts go away. In fact, it just shows everyone else that you truly don't know what you're talking about.
Second, not allowing mass-murder and horrific violence in video games isn't sheltering people. It's in fact the exact opposite- purposefully feeding them aggression, violence, and what all people would be considered "evil". The middle ground would be to not purposefully shelter them from it, but not purposefully feed it to them either.
Also, sheltering people from horror in NO WAY desensitizes people to it. In fact, sheltered people will find it SIGNIFICANTLY more "horrific" than someone who wasn't sheltered. Sheltering others will make them MORE sensitive to things (often considered overly-sensitive) which is the opposite of desensitizing them.
Couch Potato Psychology FTL.
Please leave it to the experts who actually study these fields with real scientific studies... not internet rumors, DATELINE commercials, and common ignorance.
I won't argue anymore than this post though. What are your credentials in psychology or sociology? None?
I actually have a degree in it, and real evidence not random assumptions. Seriously... since when does sheltering people DESENSITIZE them? LoL.../
How can video games cause violence? Seriously it makes no sense. Violence has been around since the dawn of man not the dawn of video games.
Let me ask you one question. Since you seem to think you are smart or something.
If one million people play the same video game and one person goes out and shoots up a school. Can you explain to me how it was the video game that cause this to happen? Since only 1 out of 1 million did the shooting?
It makes no sense. Video games, music, movies cannot cause people to be violent only violent people can cause violence.
Video games(books, etc) do not *cause* violence, in and of themselves. But they can influence peoples internal mental processes(for good or ill). What choices people make determine if their actions are good or evil. Saying something like "its only a game" is much akin to saying that the bible is "only a book". Both are true, after a fashion. But neither takes in to account the impact they can have on people. Once again, I do NOT want such games banned. But people *are* responsible for their actions/in actions.
Yes "PEOPLE" are responsible for their actions not video games, not movies, not music. PEOPLE.
It is only a game and the Bible is only a book. Those are facts. People choose how to react to those things. They cannot influence people unless they want to be influence by them. A person is going to comit violence if that is what they want to do, they will blame (along with the media) whatever they want to blame. People do not take responsiblity for their actions anymore.
The problem I have with people like yourself is that you believe that games, movies, books, ect can influence people to do bad things, that simply is not true, bad people do bad things. Period. No outside influence is needed.
Violence has been around as long as humans. Humans are violent by nature. That is just how it is, we as humans forget that we are nothing more then animals. We want to believe we are more then just animals but we are not.
Sooner or Later
We are more than animals. Animals don't have morals. Animals have no concept of the future. Animals aren't aware of their own mortality.
Yours is the philosophy of the sociopath.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
We are more than animals. Animals don't have morals. Animals have no concept of the future. Animals aren't aware of their own mortality.
Yours is the philosophy of the sociopath.
No books cannot inspire people to do good things unless they are looking to be inspired. Again a weak minded person will be easier influenced then a strong minded person. Its not a hard concept. Its along the same lines as peer presure.
Yes I dispute the concept of role models. Again unless the person is looking for someone to learn from or follow then a role model is nothing.
I had "hero's" growing up but they were not my role models, if anyone was my role model it was my father and that is because I do want to be like him. My parents taugh me to think for myself and not to be a follower and to not bend to others peoples wills.
My philosophy? How do you know what my philosophy is?
Humans are animals. It is pretty common knowledge that we are animals. We maybe more aware of ourselfs then other animals but it does not change the fact that we are animals.
Again we as humans try to pretend we are more then animals. My dog has morals, she does not attack other dogs, she is friendly towards people that she knows. She knows right from wrong. My dog has a sense of the future, she knows when I am going to come home from work, she is always waiting at the door when I come home. She would not be waiting at the door when I got home unless she had a concept of time. (my roommate currently is out of work and says that my dog will come to the door about 5 to 10 minutes before I pull into the drive way.)
Sooner or Later