Evil games article in today's Indo

ixoy

Thought I'd post this from today's Irisih Independent :

Playing a dangerous game with our children

JUST as a video game has been cited as contributing to a recent murder, we read that another violent game has taken the market by storm amid a wave of opprobrium and controversy.

Earlier this year, so grave was the concern about the video game 'Manhunt' that New Zealand took the dramatic step of imposing a ban on its sale. Surprisingly, the history of video games has been peppered with controversy beginning in 1976 with Death Race, a video used in arcades.

In the US, two surgeons general, C Everett Koop in 1982 and David Satcher in 2001, have carried out detailed studies of violence among youth and whilst the former suggested that games had no merit, Satcher pointed to the paucity of scientific data and, in particular, to the absence of longitudinal studies of their effect.

Among the limited studies available, there was a small effect size for physical aggression and a moderate effect size for aggressive thinking.

However, individual studies have found that play is more aggressive after exposure to violent video games, although the effect over time remains unanswered and studies have not controlled for the impact that screen violence may exert in conjunction with these games.

Not surprisingly the worries about video games have increased in the past four to five years as the graphics have become more realistic and the use of 3D images adds to the air of reality.

Critics of video games agree that they are at least as damaging to children as television shows with similar levels of cruelty, although many argue that videos are more dangerous because the player uses the controller to make his on-screen character act out the violence.

A professor of psychology at Westpoint University cites shooter games as particularly pernicious, describing them as "murder simulators".

He argues that they train children in the use of weapons and harden the child emotionally to murder by the simulated killing of hundreds in a single game. A further worry is perhaps less startling but nonetheless valid. Some have expressed concern that these games are addictive and that instead of interacting with peers, the child isolates himself for hours and becomes personally and socially stunted, a concern that is likely to be further fuelled by the recent finding that in Britain, one third of children have computers in their bedrooms.

Other concerns exist about specific games that have racist overtones or those that place religious groups as the enemy and give points for their destruction.

Of note is the further observation that few games are specifically designed to appeal to girls and there are charges that these games are augmenting the already aggressive drive that exists innately in men.

Not surprisingly the games industry argue that these games carry warnings and are sold only to over 18s.

They will also point to the lack of firm evidence that they cause violence, citing the fact that they are played by millions of people world-wide without them engaging in sadistic violence.

Critics are often accused of creating "moral panic" and they contend that the use of violence in these games may be an appropriate cathartic discharge of violent energy.

These seemingly reasonably arguments are beguiling but they ignore the difficulty of controlling who is exposed to a game in the home. They also deny the sad reality that whilst only the occasional person is inspired to kill by these games, they may have an impact on those who exist on the very margin of stability.

Even in those not so overtly damaged by these games they may fuel fantasies that are unspoken but nonetheless dangerous.

The cathartic justification is perhaps the most dangerous and wrong-headed since the discharge of violence by violent actions is addictive rather than purging of aggressive impulses.

In the 60s, media theorist Marshall McLuhan said: "The games people play reveal a great deal about them."

If what we play defines us, then there can be no greater proof of the violent society that we inhabit than the proliferation of violent videos.

As part of a vast array of violent images to which young people are exposed, their place in the jigsaw of increasing violence cannot be discounted or ignored. A ban on games may be too draconian at present.

However, parents must take responsibility for supervising their children's purchase and access to such material. It is tempting to be duped into believing that "they're all doing it", and to succumb to a false sense of our children's maturity.

Until further evidence becomes available that violent video games are safe and do not hamper our children's moral or social development, we should err on the side of caution and not subject our children to an untested social experiment.

* Patricia Casey is professor of psychiatry at the Mater Hospital/UCD.

Patricia Casey

.. Whilst not the most imbalanced, it fails to point out studies that have shown the positive element to gaming. The most annoying part though is its rant about games making people loners - failing to point out that many games have multiplayer options that actively encourage interaction. I'd expect such blatant ignorance from a tabloid but a professor of psychiatry??

ixoy

Here's the accompanying article :

arents urged to bar violent computer games
ADVERTISEMENT

PARENTS should not allow violent computer games into their homes and society must commit itself to "controlling" the games, a leading clinical psychologist has said.

Marie Murray, Director of Psychology at St Vincent's Hospital, Fairview, Dublin, was responding to the release of the latest ultra-violent PC game, Doom 3, which is the number one seller in games shops all over the country.

Murray described violent computer games generally as "a very dangerous psychological milieu to expose children to".

Doom 3 is rated over-18s and games shops contacted by the Irish Independent yesterday insisted that they are strictly adhering to the ratings code when selling the game to customers.

However, Marie Murray said the ratings system was ineffective. "Even if the shops are refusing to sell these games to the underage that doesn't mean they won't be seen or played by younger children when an older person brings them home."

She said: "For this reason parents shouldn't allow violent computer games into their homes at all. The information is available to us that violent games and violent images can harm children developmentally, yet we refuse to acknowledge this."

Doom 3 is the latest edition in one of the best-selling computer series of all time. It has been praised and criticised for the atmospheric sense of dread it creates, as well as for its hyper-realistic violence.

The game's publishers, Activision, have defended the release of the game.

Tim Ponting, head of Activision's European Corporate Communications described it as "a game suitable for an adult audience, marketed appropriately to adult consumers who make their own choice whether to purchase."

It was claimed that the Columbine High School killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were influenced by games such as Doom.

Marie Murray said that violent games and violent images affect individuals, and children in particular, in three ways. , "They desensitive people to violence; they can be highly addictive which means they displace other activities such as reading or playing sport, and they have an impact in terms of the kind of message they send children, which is that violence is rewarded".

She said that there was research to back up her claim about the effects of violent imagery.

She said that where a young person had other problems, such as social isolation, violent games could have an adverse effect on them.

More imbalance. It was claimed that the games influence the Columbine killers - and that was thrown out of court. Why not mention that piece hmmm? And because you can't controll access, can't be a responsible parent, blanket banning should be introduced? Ja, mein Fuhrer sehr gut...

Jim

I agree with most of the second article. Its up to the parents / game shops to enforce the ratings. I'd certainly use discrection if I had a child with regard to computer games, just like I would films.

Also the first article mentioned the Manhunt murder. But didn't it turn out that the murderer never actually played the game, but it was the victim who did. It annoys me when they give half facts. I don't see how any self respecting journalist could do that.

Also, personally I'd say I'm more influenced by film characters than computer games.

Now, to turn into my morph ball and roll down to the canteen.

koneko

Doom 3 is the latest edition in one of the best-selling computer series of all time. It has been praised and criticised for the atmospheric sense of dread it creates, as well as for its hyper-realistic violence.

Yes, I'm sure it's hyper-realistic to people living on laboratories on Mars, where Hell semes to have broken loose and zombies and monsters are killing everyone.

Yet another "Let's blame someone but the parents" article. Someone should really write a letter to these people. Preferably someone that can write (so not me).

Imposter

However, Marie Murray said the ratings system was ineffective. "Even if the shops are refusing to sell these games to the underage that doesn't mean they won't be seen or played by younger children when an older person brings them home."

She said: "For this reason parents shouldn't allow violent computer games into their homes at all. The information is available to us that violent games and violent images can harm children developmentally, yet we refuse to acknowledge this."

And perhaps people should get rid if televisions from their homes in case children watch something after 9pm.
Oh and no more knives in the house. That just encourages people to use them as weapons.

Big Nelly

The Indo in the last while has gone from a decent paper to just the usual s**t you expect in the Sun! wud love to talk to the editor and tell him to get a f**kin grip and quit publishin s**t! they r just jumpin on da bandwagon now! this story was out a month ago and was proved to be a load of crap! so why now publish this? next they will have that dope of a mother talkin about her poor son who was killed by a game!! well if she was so worried about the game why did she buy it for him??? or let him play it????

As said before the killer hadnt even got the game so where did this come out of??? ususal crap parents blaming anyone but themselves! get a grip people!

rant over

Tyrrial

the Indo is just one-sided tripe :mad:
once i complete doom III i'll KILL THEM ALL!!!

ObeyGiant

ixoy wrote:

"They desensitive people to violence; they can be highly addictive which means they displace other activities such as reading or playing sport, and they have an impact in terms of the kind of message they send children, which is that violence is rewarded".

This was my favourite part of the entire piece, and the one I'd be most inclined to take issue with (although it was a very, very close call). I'd like to know how one rates the merits of one particular activity over another; how one rates the merits of one particular form of entertainment over another. Personally speaking, I'd rate "playing sport" lower than others, but this comes after someone once tried to stick their finger up my ass when playing rugby. I'd like to point out that, for all the violence and other antisocial behaviour they supposedly inspire, noone ever tried to stick their finger up my ass while I was playing a violent video game.

Well, there was that one time...

Stephen

He argues that they train children in the use of weapons and harden the child emotionally to murder by the simulated killing of hundreds in a single game.

Wow, what an absolutely retarded viewpoint!
Because i can click a mouse and use a keyboard (at the same time, omg!!) I am now an expert marksman. Now where will I get myself that BFG in time for saturday's killing spree?

AngryBadger

The impetus to shield young children from video game violence is qutie simply on the aprents, end of story. Like most things, video games are a corporate entity, they're, by and large, not developed with the emphasis on, a five-year-old should be able to play this. And why should they be? A corporate body is not setting itself up under the aspusis of being a social watchdog, and so it shouldn't be expected to perform as such. By categorising games for different age group publishers, and developers are discharging their responsibility to society, and that's the end of it.

Once an age-categorised game hits the shelves the responsibility of ensuring children don't play it falls on the retailers, and the aprents. In fairness this video game argument is like people arguing about the bad morals that south park cartoons are teaching their children, when their children shouldn't even be watching those cartoons.

Yet another example of the pass-the-buck attitude that people are adopting more and more these days.

Further to which, the only people who suffer significant impact from playing video games are those who are already emotionally imbalanced. Why oh why are we now pointing the finger at video games, as the latest most sensational cause, and not instead wondering what's wrong with how we're raising our children that they're developing these mental instabilities?

Last point,

Some have expressed concern that these games are addictive and that instead of interacting with peers, the child isolates himself for hours and becomes personally and socially stunted, a concern that is likely to be further fuelled by the recent finding that in Britain, one third of children have computers in their bedrooms.

I do agree with this. I know when I was younger I woyuld often spend hours on end playing games instead of heading out. Again I do feel the onus is on the parents here to watch their kids, but I acknowledge that where this kind of thing os ongoing you can get people who lack sufficient interpersonal experience, and skill, making integration difficult. ALso I don't think the soial aspect of multiplayer gaming is a proper substitute for actual real-world social interaction.

Final thought, I love Doom 3

Jim

Yep. Because sport doesn't incite violence at all. I know lets put these men fighting over a ball the size of my fist in the pissing rain, and then, we'll give them sticks!

I'm not knocking sport, but it has caused alot more violence than video games, football hooligans etc... Its mostly because its more popular than video games, but meh.

I think we're in agreement that that Indo guy is a fucking noob. I'd love to meet him on the battlefield and give him a taste of my M16.

koneko

Jimeatsmenu wrote:

I'm not knocking sport, but it has caused alot more violence than video games, football hooligans etc... Its mostly because its more popular than video games, but meh.

You could just picture the gangs of nerds wandering the streets after a LAN, smashing windows and setting stuff on fire.

Jim

Heh, yeah.

Well, actually, it would probably happen after a CS lan.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

BlitzKrieg

Is it just me or do none of these people know that there is more to a game then simple violence...


tghe highest selling games are the hghest selling not because of their simple gorefest, many of them encourage alot more creative thinking then most activities.

what about strategy games, what about stealth em ups, what about in GTA vice city all the missions (admit it you get bored of the violence after 20 minutes) System shock 2 (which i just started) encourages exploration and thinking around the problem.


if you take out the top 10 games of all time, you will find that the only one there which could be considered a simple kill them all would be the original doom. every other game encourages gamers to use their heads. Espeiciallly online games. I admit there are some games which are simple violence sprees but more often then not they get the same treatment by the fans as a b-movie zombie flick. Only a select audiance. Manhunt is only doing so well because of these people complaining.


i'm gonna write the indo and ask them to comment on strategy games, on adventure games on even freaken puzzle games!

so everyone gimme a list of the best possible game for each genre to show these idiots that games are not all mindless killer ups!

Dear person who wrote article play these games and then tell me games are just mindless harmful violent spree's:

Strategy

-Medievil total war -As a leader of a medievil kingdom you must lead your people to greatness, but to do this you must use a diverse range of policies and use your head (alot) to defeat those who oppose you, while keeping your own people happy. To get anywhere in this game you will need to be a better policy maker then GWB!

Cabaal

Lads better not allow kids to watch films about WWI or WWII after all some many people died in it and we don't want them to get used to death, Infact we don't want them to read anything about any wars at all and better not leave them watch the news about people getting killed in Iraq either.

After playing Doom 3 I always feel like killing things with big teeth that jump out at me, of course because I played a game its warped my sense of reality and now I can't tell the difference between a demon or a dog, oh well :rolleyes:

I'm still waiting for the Daily Mail to run yet more ****e about games killing people
actually on that note.......

KdjaCL

All on the parents tbh , my brother lets his kid play all games (i mean all, hes 7) i wont let them play or watch a movie unless they at the req age. #


Although wonder if either of those doctors could help me stop my 2 year old girl from grabbing dogs and cats by the ears and biting their noses , she seen it on the Tweenies but it was a kiss. She doesnt understand has been bitten twice. Should i sue the BBC??? or my son built a large tower of blocks which fell on my head (bloody hurt) should i sue Bob the Builder?


Games with ratings are meant for that age group its up to the parents to adhere to that. BUT most parents use PS2s/Game machine and TV as a babysitter as they are to lazy to encourage their child to be creartive and the kid is quieter when playing /watching, and the parent is happier.

Also about the 8pm thing , NAM Tour of Duty is on TV at 11am (good tv show ) but fairly nasty as it shows Vietnam quite brutally and is on way before the watershed there are a lot of other tv shows like it on at the same time.

BUT with most societies its easier to blame someone else for yourchilds misgivings then accept the blame yourself as a bad parent who allowed their child to see/play, renact what they seen. I have the same problems but with kids doing things they not supposed to but i dont blame someone else ,its my fault noone elses.



kdjac

Deadwing

koneko wrote:

You could just picture the gangs of nerds wandering the streets after a LAN, smashing windows and setting stuff on fire.

A few of the nerds in my class and i have already started a harcore hip hop band. Just another example of how using computers and having anything to do with the internet corrupts the youth of today.
Our first double A sided single 'fix my server bitch/shake tha booty.ini'' is out next week.

Cabaal

Course its easier, "My little Jimmy wouldn't do anything wrong, it must be the evil corporation!" Alot of parents are lazy as hell and I'd fully agree with the above.

Though in saying that I saw Robocop when I was 10 and it never did me any harm but none the less my parents wouldn't have agreed with it, they wouldn't stop me but they would have made it clear that they were not happy if I was watching a violent film and they were around. I wouldn't expect a video shop to stop me from buying the film I would always expect my parents to do that.

Also a few years later I was up in Dublin and went into Virgin Megastores to buy Red Alert, the lad at the counter wouldn't sell it to me because I wasn't 18.
I was pissed off about it, got someone else to get it for me and did''ent buy from the shop again, I don't care if its company policy they gota be carefull how the treat there future big spenders.

Jim

Heh, kdjac is going to hell.

mr_angry

My response to this has always been "How many people a year do cars kill? How many do games kill? Thats right - LETS BAN THE CARS!"

That generally puts things into perspective. Pretty much the same arguments can be used regarding unstable people too - should we ban cars because unstable people can use them to kill people? I don't think so.

My favourite quote of the piece was:

A ban on games may be too draconian at present.

Really? DO YA THINK?!?!

BKtje

Yer i think ill write to them as well. Ill mention the points people brough up here along with a few of my own (gotta formulate em properly first tho ).

I read the indo every day in work ( its not quite a broadsheet and not quite a tabloid, imo has a good balance and tbh i cant be arsed reading any other paper. They do however post(err should be write ) some utter rubbish).

Syth

slashdot.org had a link to this article about the history of censorship 'to protect the children'. Currently it's games. Before that it was films, TV, comics, Space Invaders, Elvis, Ozzy Osbourne. Violent games are just the current target.

Jimeatsmenu wrote:

I'm not knocking sport, but it has caused alot more violence than video games, football hooligans etc.

Lets not forget the killing of Brian Murphy a while back that was motivated by rugby school rivallry.

Stormfox1020

I love sports (rugby), but in all fairness more people die from sports injurys/accidents, or sports related issues (ice-hockey, ahem riots) compared to video game related deaths. So does this mean they will ban all sports in the near future too? Its also ironic how new zeland, ban loads of violent games such as manhunt and GTA but will happily send their children off to get bet around the place in a game of rugby.

Dr. Loon

I sent a rather longwinded mail to the Independant yesterday, expressing how this type of imbalanced journalism irritates me. They wrote back asking if I'd speak with them for an article in Saturdays paper. They want to write a fair article on "violent" gaming.

I don't have time to speak with them cos I'm in work, but invited them to mail me anything they want. It'll be interesting to see what they ask. I was surprised I got a reply considering the sarcasm in my mail.

Lemming

Care to post your original mail Dr.Loon?

Manach

[sarcasm]I think that video games should have been banned from the start - I mean that Pong game - the stricking ball action beyond a douth will lead to the players becoming mass-murders and not in reasonably well-adjusted IT staff that are the backbone of this economic [/sarcasm]

The Indo. gone the way of its Sunday sibling - all opinion and no facts, makes me want to reach for my chainsaw.

Blisterman

Games make kids loners? How about reading, that's a solo activity?
How about we organize a big book burning?

Stephen

Its the trinity of evil - computer games, rock music and movies, ban them all I say. Set up the fun police too, I'm sure Michael McDowell would be up for it. Once they're in place we can enforce a 9PM curfew - as you know, anyone who is out on the streets at night is nothing but a criminal looking for trouble, and probably selling computer games to 7 year olds, the bastards.

Dr. Loon

Lemming wrote:

Care to post your original mail Dr.Loon?

Sure... it contains some of the sentiments expressed here, so don't accuse me of plageurism I wasn't even expecting any reply. So thanks to the posters on this thread for supplying me with ammo!

Dear David,

Regarding the article "Parents urged to bar violent computer games". I find your story highly imbalanced and ridiculous. All of these articles are misplacing the blame in these situations. It is a parents responsibility to ensure their child does not have access to unsuitable material. Once a game store has sold a game to a person of the appropriate age, it is out of their hands and into the hands of the child's parents. It has absolutely nothing to do with the game maker nor store. You are shifting the blame the same way so many other "journalists" do. Most notably in the US.

I quote from your article, "It has been praised and criticised for the atmospheric sense of dread it creates, as well as for its hyper-realistic violence." Well, if you consider being trapped on Mars when demons from Hell are literally unleashed "hyper-realistic" I honestly don't know what to say. Where did you think this up? Where did you get your information exactly?

Another quote, "It was claimed that the Columbine High School killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were influenced by games such as Doom." You fail to mention the fact that this case was thrown out of court? Why so? Oh, that's right, because it wouldn't fit in with your scare tactics and hyperbole. I also noted another article in the Independant - "Playing a Dangerous game with our children" you mention the game Manhunt and the concern it may have been a factor in a murder. The article fails to mention the fact that it was the victim and not the murderer that owned a copy of the game. Why so? A quote from that article also, "He argues that they train children in the use of weapons". Do you not find this absolutely laughable? Equating the movement and clicking of a mouse to loading and firing a gun? Honestly, I never knew using Microsoft Word was subconsciously training me in the use of firearms!

Did it ever occur to you that these people are inherently unstable? Do you think that before they'd played Doom they were out running in the fields with rabbits and giving each other flowers and hugs? It wouldn't matter if they had no access to video games. The latest Kill Bill movie, or Die Hard, or Rambo should do the job just as well. So, let's ban games, and movies. While we're at it, we should ban books. In fact do books even have a rating? Their content can be alot more graphic than what you'll see in movies or video games.

Again, the problem is not the makers of the media it is the parents of the people in question, or the person in questions psychological stability. Parents trying to ban the games? How about not letting your Son or Daughter get access to them? Crazy idea I know. I have seen this article, all over the internet and the tabloid media in the past few months. Is this what the Independent is becoming? A larger print format of the tacky tabloids? This type of reporting is blatant mis-information.

It actually sickens me. One sided, imbalanced, unresearched tripe. In future you should try to include all of the facts, rather than the ones that suit your agenda. You almost had a whiff of the true point, but lost it with your ill researched facts. Parents should not allow their children access to inappropriate material. Full stop. This should include games, movies, the internet, books, television and music. All of which (with the exception of books) are clearly labelled with an appropriate age recommendation. A parent that buys their 13 year old son a copy of Kill Bill, Doom 3 or any other 18's rated media is not doing their job as a parent. Restrictions and age recommendations are there for a reason.

Just to note I am not trying to make light of the tragedies concerned, but make the point that the blame lies not with the video games. Parents and retailers need to stop shifting the blame elsewhere, when the responsibility lies with themselves.

I hope your paper gets back some semblance of sense and credibility in the future. If not, I'll have to stop reading.

Here's a few links which might help you in future articles;

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15820

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1295920.stm

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/columbine/article/0,1299,DRMN_106_1014458,00.html

http://ps2.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=5818

http://www.elspa.com/about/pr/pr.asp?mode=view&t=1&id=468&ref=home

My apologies for the lenghty mail, but this has been on my mind for some time now.

Regards,
Dr. Loon

Jim

Ps. You are muppet.

Pfft, noob journalists.