Alan Titchmarsh on VIOLENT video games

Kevster

I think that a lot of you don't understand this debate either, but neither do the people in that YouTube video. Violent video-games are fine for people like you and I because - in a nutshell - we have sense. To put this in another way: Violent games don't create killers or cause violent behaviour.

However, what they do is give people who are already unstable/lacking in sense new ideas. So, if you are already a jerk who is violent, playing a game might just give you new ways to carry out your violence. In some cases, the methods you learn will be better than the ones you had already been using, and therein lies the issue.

However, these people who are anti violent video-games must surely be anti violent movies. Oh wait, actually, they're just hypocrites and stupid assholes.

Kevin

pwd

I know a guy who thinks he is a military genius. He thinks this because he considers himself good at age of empires.
He applied to do a cadetship. He is short, very unassertive, a bit chubby. He dismissed any suggestion that he got involved in sports or exercised. He fully expected to walk the interviews.
Obviously he didn't get past the screening interview. He was genuinely shocked at this.

I find I get urges to hide and jump out at people to give them frights when I play games like l4d a lot.
I also tend to be more positive about cooperating with people, and teamwork.
I never get any urge to blast them with a shotgun or try to tear them to shreds though.

A lot of skangers try to emulate the gangsta mentality as portrayed in some rap music and movies.
They don't emulate street fighter or counter strike though.

Paparazzo

They're not going to be banned, way too much money to be made. MW2 has made €1billion!

Jazzy wrote: »

wouldnt that be like the easiest way to make sure your kid isnt being exposed to things they shouldnt be? by.. ya know, watching them and taking care of them and stuff?
its all just another defense for crap parents to hide behind. no one takes responsibility for what this sort of thing. no parents take responsibility for their kids going out with knives in that (or this) country.

Bang on, any time groups like this want something "banned", responsible parenting would be th better solution. If your 12 year old child is able to lock himself in a room and play an 18's game, the game isn't the problem, its the parent.

Kevster

Unless Jazzy is a parent him- her-self (and you too, Paparazzo), you shouldn't pass judgement on the way other parents raise their children.

Orim

Kevster wrote: »

Unless Jazzy is a parent him- her-self (and you too, Paparazzo), you shouldn't pass judgement on the way other parents raise their children.

Whether you are a parent or not, you can pass judgement on bad parenting when it rears it's ugly head.

For example a parent that buys an 18 rated video game for a 12 year old is a bad parent. I do not need to be a parent myself to decide this.

SeantheMan

Stick to gardening ye twat !

Stopped watchin as soon as that pompous bitch opened her mouth

SeantheMan

pwd wrote: »

I know a guy who thinks he is a military genius. He thinks this because he considers himself good at age of empires.
He applied to do a cadetship. He is short, very unassertive, a bit chubby

He is obviously the moden day Napoleon !!

dr gonzo

Im sick and tired of video games being seen as the sole domain of children. They've forged for themselves an art form of their own, they're just as legitimate a form of entertainment(mature or otherwise) as any other and im tired of hearing idiots spouting on about violent video games as if they're only made for kids. Like your man said while doing an excellent job holding his own against that onslaught, they have ratings for a reason.

Case in point Mass Effect 2 - as cinematic and adult a game as you'll find.

Coriolanus

Killinator wrote: »

On way too many occasions has a kid come into the store I work in , bring an 18s game to the counter(typically COD:MW2 or GTA4), we tell them we cantbecasue they are underage, they go, grab parent, and parent buys the game after we tell them we coundln't sell it to thir kid becasue its an 18's game, general response: "ar sure its ok".
If the kids werent let play the games by parents it wouldnt be a problem.

Intoxicating Liquors Act wrote:

It is an offence to buy alcohol for people under the age of 18.

I think something like that should be brought in. IF the staff of a games shop have a reasonable suspicion that the game is going to be given to a minor, they can refuse to sell it.
Unless things do get tougher, the industry will always be acussed of being soft on underage gaming.

Skerries

please say thats an April Fools!?

L31mr0d wrote: »

In other news, shock revelation that a minor has been sold a goldfish... the perpetrators of this crime have been convicted and punished

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262250/Great-grandmother-tagged-selling-goldfish.html

Skerries

Orim wrote: »

Whether you are a parent or not, you can pass judgement on bad parenting when it rears it's ugly head.

For example a parent that buys an 18 rated video game for a 12 year old is a bad parent. I do not need to be a parent myself to decide this.

they are not bad parents they are just ignorant of how violent games can be

GothPunk

The shining light through all this is the fact that the UK government is increasingly becoming more pro-gaming. Sure they're only really interested in the money the games industry rakes in but all three major political parties in the UK are in favour of measures that benefit the games industry. I didn't make it through the whole video but did they mention the fact that their government is pro-gaming? Chancellor Alistair Darling only announced a while ago that they're introducing tax breaks for developers.

I thought videogames were pretty mainstream now, surely there's something more novel to be afraid of?

OctavarIan

Why are people sending complaints and petitioning over this, it's embarrassing. While I agree that the woman in the middle was a total nonce, there was nothing unfair, illegal or offensive in that video which would warrant a complaint. Immature, uneducated and kneejerk reaction by the petitioners.

I do think with the proximity to the BAFTAs though that they could have chosen a more positive or insightful topic, this one was lazy TV and has been driven to death but hey it's what their audience want.

In the end why do any of you really care what the older generation of housewives think? When you're sitting at home playing SFIV online are you really worrying about the social acceptance of what you're doing among people maybe 10, 15 years your senior?

petes

Skerries wrote: »

they are not bad parents they are just ignorant of how violent games can be

Of course they are. The rating is there for a reason. As the bloke from CVG said. Same as DVD's. If anything they should read up on what exactly an 18 cert entails.

I was watching that and knew that bint was going to come out with the airport level in MW.

mrm

Skerries wrote: »

they are not bad parents they are just ignorant of how violent games can be

Ok not bed parents, but they definitely exercise some bad parenting practices. They cannot claim ignorance of games as any defence if they allow their children access to unsuitable rated games. For example, there was a woman on Joe Duffy on release day of MW2 (show podcast posted on Boards.ie- all about that mild airport stage) who described a profile of her 16 year old son that was clearly unsuitable for online war games (due to bullying - her explanation). She only saw the game as the problem - not her sons unsuitability to gaming nor her bad parenting for giving him the game; she said she gave him the game to make up for the bullying incident. This has nothing to do with game violence, game ratings or ignorance of gaming or even airports - this is simply bad parenting. Unfortunately in todays world a lot societies perceived ills are used to cover for bad parent.

@OctavarIan - yes, yes I do. When I am playing a game I am constantly considering what an 'older generation' person would think of it. And if I think that my father (all 74 years of him) would like it I give him the game after I am finished. He generally likes them! Well that truely blows your argument completely out of the water!:D

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Mr E wrote: »

Priceless.

Argument nullified, credibilty crashes and burns.

Have you ever changed your stance on anything in the past? Have you ever considered changing your mind on something?

Orim wrote: »

Whether you are a parent or not, you can pass judgement on bad parenting when it rears it's ugly head.

For example a parent that buys an 18 rated video game for a 12 year old is a bad parent. I do not need to be a parent myself to decide this.

There is a difference between bad parenting and a parent making a bad choice. You have judged a parent, who has nurtured and cared for that kid for 12 years, plus another 9 months through pregnancy, based on one action?



Firstly I want to say that I love violent video games. I long for the game which implements the soldier of fortune physics and the graphics of modern warfare. I want limbs to get blown off, I want to be able to shoot somebodies head off, I want realism and I don't want some fake artistic view of how somebody might look like if they get shot with an ak47.

I have some weapon experience, and I know what damage a bullet does. If a person is shot with the barrett .50 cal sniper rifle, or the .50 cal machine gun, they don't prance around holding their wounds gasping for air. They are going to get serious critical wounds. The energy behind those bullets will completely destroy your body. the 5.56mm nato round is more accurate in games these days, but they use the similar damage effects with all bullets. The 7.62 (ak47, gpgm, other light machine gun rounds) is a very powerfull round too. I wish games would reflect this and not censor the damage from these weapons. I think by doing this people think that getting shot with an ak47 or the likes is not so bad, when in fact this is going to put large holes in you. I have seen the effects of certain bullets on flesh, unfortunately. I don't think that is going to happen though, unfortunately.

Now, saying this I am going to be in the minority, but I am not plucking what I say out of thin air, like some of you are. We all love video games, if you seen my collection you would think I am a video game freak, I am. I have studied psychology in past years, I really enjoyed it too and what I can say is that we are influenced by our surroundings and experience. There are no studies yet to say that video games are or are not linked to violence, but what I have learned in the past is that we are influenced by everything.

Do computer games make you kill people? No, that's just fcuking stupid. They don't actually make you kill people. There have been cases of people re-enacting game scenes and killing people, but those people are nutjobs. We have all heard the arguement "I play gta4 but I don't rob cars and I don't shoot hookers to get my money back"... but that's not the claim. The claim is that "video games make you are more violent person" which I believe to be true. Now each person is different, what might effect you may not effect the man sitting next to you. Also, what effects you a lot, may effect him only a little. This is a pretty difficult arguement for both sides, but we must look at the science of it. Also, I would disregard any study taken on directly by either side. I would be more interested in independant studies. Those that are not funded by the games industry, or lobbied by distrought parents.

Games introduce (real or not) a level of violence which we would not be exposed to on such a large scale if games did not exist. This claim should not only look at video games, but TV (films, shows etc etc) and books (magazines, pictures etc etc). The level of violence in these can be different, and although the likes of books are not pixelated, they can be extremely graphic. We as humans, are not used to being exposed this much to violence. You must also factor in the level of realism (which I want more of), how long you are exposed to that medium is also important. A film is approximately 90 minutes long. That film may be watched again and again, but the level of stickiness is nothing compared to some computer games. We have all played games for hours on end. Some of us have played for as long as 8 hours a day, every day of the week. Games are much more addictive than any other medium out there. With the introduction of achievements and weapon upgrades the stickiness level has increased dramatically.

If we take a look at violence in the home, would people agree that the child has a tendancy to become a more violent person? While this exposure is at a completely different level (much more influence) to that of media (games, films, books), media may still have an effect on you. It is different for each person as we all have different personalities. Violence in the home may not effect some people, and it may dramatically effect others.

Nobody, and I mean nobody can say that video games do or do not cause violence as there is yet to be an unbiased professional proper study performed (from what I know), but from what I have studied in the past I can say that your surroundings and what you are exposed to, can have serious influences on you.

I'm ready to be flamed now, thanks

noodler

She was an utter disgrace - absolutely no degree of research done on her part and she was just there to shout generalities at the cvg guy to try and garner applause.

I didn't even know you could parental lock a PS3 etc so what the hell is the problem?

If some massmurder had watched alot of horror movies in his life, would we argue they cause him to be as such? The causality issues witht he Bolger point are quite apparent.

Mr E

Jason Thoughtless Knickknack wrote: »

I'm ready to be flamed now, thanks

Well argued, Julie.

Better than the "OMG Airport! Guns! Shoot! Innocent people! Rah rah... clap for meeeeee" crap in the video.

marko93

Right, so from this we can safely say, that woman has heard of the violence in MW and is basing the whole gaming industry on it.......Right and the guy on the left was right, theres censorship for a reason, not his fault or a games fault if a parent buys it for them, and guy on the right, argued his point well , so basically to that woman , stick to what you know and stay the **** out of what you don't

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Mr E wrote: »

Well argued, Julie.

Better than the "OMG Airport! Guns! Shoot! Innocent people! Rah rah... clap for meeeeee" crap in the video.

There are extremists in every walk of life

ballybay_eh

I'm so angered by that clip that I could go out and commit a video game-inspired act of violence.

To the airport!

marko93

ballybay_eh wrote: »

I'm so angered by that clip that I could go out and commit a video game-inspired act of violence.

To the airport!

That made me laugh, that lady didnt know what she was talking about :pac:

Duggy747

Eurgh, I've spent so much of my time discussing this subject and working my hole off on a project on this subject once in college. Nothing changes, people who aren't gamers will never understand the complexity or mentality of the gaming industry.

Like we're still in the 8-bit era that only kids play games, the rest are braindead morons. I think they've forgotten that those "kids" have grown up and are now working in all areas of society. Yet, if you give them the controller they won't have a clue what to do because they don't understand the various techniques you employ in different genres.

It's like people wondering why some listen to Dance music.

Heh, did Alan start off with: "On the shortlist are titles like Call Of Duty 2..........Modern Warfare........" as 2 seperate games? :pac: I dunno who that old tart was flapping her mouth off, she had nothing to contribute to the conversation except rile the crowd. The interview would have had far more depth if it was just the CVG guy and the ol' bloke (Who made some decent points)

In the end it's the ignorance of the parents letting their kids play these games. It reflects on them when they blame the industry for their own failings. Seriously, what kind of fùckin' idiot are you if you let your kid get his hands on an 18s game? You'd punish him if he bought any of the Saw movies, right?

Remember we were all doomed when this doozy came out? The game that started all this rating mumbo-jumbo and misunderstandings!


It's a war that's already been won on our side; games are now mainstream, it's a fùckin' huuuuuuuuge industry, both sexes play them and consoles are nearly as common as a PC in a household. Let these ignorant fools chatter amongst themselves, they can never be pleased.

mrm

Interesting that Alan Titchmarsh and Julie Peasgood are involved in, and portray themselves as the moral adjucators within, this argument about the corruption of children from video games, even thought they list games that are clearly rated as unsuitable for children and therefore would/ should not be freely accessible to them.
Yet pre watershed tv is fully accessible to children and the content is selected and presented accordingly. Or is it? See video below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQQnDYRR6bs
And as for Kelvin Mckensie- notorious former editor with the Sun newspaper.
Unfortunately all of us on this thread have been drawn in by ITV gutter media 'reporting'. Of course this is the intention. Probably every post here goes towards their ratings?
(from 6:06 the video becomes....more informative;). So I have been informed:D)

TheReverend

Been playing over 16 and over 18 games since I had my first console(woo SNES), 19 now, watched over 18's movies since i was about 3 or 4(loved braindead, im sure someone here has seen it). As far as I am concerned it is up to the parents if they feel their child is mature enough tp understand that you cant go pulling peoples heads off(Mortal Kombat) or running over predestians(GTA) as it is wrong, all it take is the parent to explain that it is wrong.

Paparazzo

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Just FYI: Julie Peasgood, who is "categorically against violence for entertainment" voice-acted in horror game Martian Gothic.

So there's that.

I honestly think Julie Peasgood was just playing to tha audience. Ridiclious comments that made no sense (games promote racism) all got a big cheer.

Kevster wrote: »

Unless Jazzy is a parent him- her-self (and you too, Paparazzo), you shouldn't pass judgement on the way other parents raise their children.

OK, but would you call a parent that lets a child sit in a room and play over 18 game all day a good parent? Maybe they're not bad parents, but they're certainly ignorant. Same way I wouldn't let a child unlimited internet access, or watch any film he likes.

Either way, there's nothing to worry about, games are going nowhere because there's too much money involved. If Julie Peasgood and debates like these are the best the anti gaming lobby can come up with, we can relax. I just wish the gamer guy went to town on her when she said she's "categorically against violence for entertainment", because that rules out about 45 of the top 50 here

Overheal

back to the question: Violent Gaming in 10 years?

You'll see much more attention put into it. About morals. And by that I mean exactly what the CVG guy was on about. Youre in the narrative, seeing first hand things that you might only ever hear about. Understand what a war zone might look like. Etc.

I mean when Call of Duty 1 came out how many mammies came out screaming "They let you shoot people!" When in fact you play a very powerful narrative. Such as the lonely pawn in Stalingrad. With those bullets. Whoops. Duck and cover! Finally seiging Berlin and taking down the Nazi seat of power. Nobody complains about that kind of violence. I don't think I've ever gotten a better idea about what World War II was like except for when I was playing that game.

You'll see more GTAs and such but I think theres going to be a little more emphasis to the reality of the situations. I dont think killing prostitues will be glorified; and there will be full blown consequences to your actions, as well as more and more scenarios where players may feel genuine guilt at the death of certain NPCs. And who hasn't killed one of the Hostages in Counterstrike without at least a pang of remorse?

TheReverend

Overheal wrote: »

. And who hasn't killed one of the Hostages in Counterstrike without at least a pang of remorse?

Me, they are AI, also killing the slowest one was always fun

Overheal

TheReverend wrote: »

Me, they are AI, also killing the slowest one was always fun

Correct.

You either treat them as AI and dont attach value to them.

Or you treat them like you would a human, and may actually feel remorse at their death.

I think more or less, morality is still preserved.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The main problem I would have with violent video games is their accessibility to children. Enforce stricter laws so that the guy behind the counter isn't selling an 18s game to a 10 ear old. That's where the problem is. Adults, who were not exposed to such violence as kids, can clearly see that video games are just that, video games. Some children may not understand that realisation so much. Keep the violence comming, make it more realistic, but for christ sakes, keep it away from young impressionable minds who are still learning. That's where it's dangerous, imo.