The Influence of Games on Society

Dr.Feelgood

Okay- I have to go on a radio show this week- and basically defend the fact that computer games especially violent ones have no effect on the people that play them so on and so on!!

You all know the argument!!! Its famous.

Whats your opinions. I will mention Boards.ie and what you think in this show!!!

Anybody know where there is info on this i could look up!!???

Its the man that strangles the victim not the game- Although it may show in detail how it is done but......

Anyway boards lets be having ya

RE*AC*TOR

Of course they have an effect on people. As do all forms of art. Just ask Mark David Chapman and John Hinckley Jr. (The Catcher In The Rye).

You can't argue that videogames have no effect on people - but you can argue that they have no different effect than books, or music.

If they have a problem with art influencing people to commit crimes etc - look at the bible - how many people killed in its name?

Dr.Feelgood

True to a point but-

I'm sure the opposition will argue-

"People dont play soccer or sport computer games then go out and kill someone with a plastic bag(Manhunt)"

So then they would argue for the banning of violent games and such!!
Not that, that will happen but i need to be a voice reason against the wave of censorship that people are looking for!!

RE*AC*TOR

Be a voice of reason - but I don't think you can outright say videogames have no negative influence on certain people - and therefore society in general. But you can say that like all forms of art they are capable of impacting a lot of people in varying ways.

It would be as appropriate to ban books as to ban videogames.

In fact videogames to a large extent are more similar to books than any other art form - they can put you in the mind of the protagonist.

ObeyGiant

Dr.Feelgood: Check out Steven Johnson's book "Everything Bad is Good for You". In it, Johnson argues that all forms of entertainment are gradually increasing in complexity and depth (although it might not seem like it), and that they are gradually increasing intelligence in unexpected ways.

In the section about video games, he explains how games like Zelda and even GTA teach kids new skills that are fundamentally useful in their day-to-day life, such as the ability to prioritise and create order out of chaos to successfully complete the missions. He uses the example of games like Sim City as something which subliminally teaches kids about things they'd normally run screaming from if they were presented in the classroom, like the intricacies of industrial economics.

I'm not going to go into all the ways he suggests video games are good for us, but it's a strong argument and one you should definitely check out.

Clinical Waste

Exactly. Books, music, films, (in fact virtually all media), religion, sexuality, even watching soccer can have the effect of influencing people and inciting them to violence stupidity and immorality.

Its just another focus for people like 'The Concerned Mothers of America' to deflect attention away from their own failings/shortcomings in their own parenting skills and family life.

(and then of course with computer games you waste SO much of your time playing them that you barely have time to eat, sleep and work let alone go out and create havoc.)

Dr.Feelgood

It depends on who's mind is being influenced in that case!!

you could reduce the numbers of attacks or fatalities caused by people who have taken it too far by increasing the certification age on games-

Having said that i know 10 year olds who have Grand Theft Auto San Andreas- Which has virtually unparralleled amounts of adult content in it.

This wont stop- I'm beginning not to want to do this show!!

AH!! Any suggestions on how to minimise a negative influence on certain people?

koneko

Dr.Feelgood wrote:

"People dont play soccer or sport computer games then go out and kill someone with a plastic bag(Manhunt)"

There are plenty of examples of people violently attacking (or worse, murdering) people that support opposing sports teams. We have all seem footage from football matches where things got out of hand and hooligans went around wrecking the town it's held in.

It takes a certain type of person to kill another human being. These people would kill even if there were no video games in their life, and the blame would be placed on movies, TV, music or books instead. It's human nature to place the blame on something else, rather than look at the actual causes and work on them, as that would mean admitting that you failed as a parent, as a friend, or as a community.

In the Manhunt example, wasn't it the victim that owned the game, and not the killer?

RE*AC*TOR

Some games are adult games - such as GTA:SA - they have an age rating and should/are not sold to minors. It becomes the responsiblity of the parent/guardian.

Many parents just buy kids whatever they want and ignore age ratings etc without giving it much thought.

In my view the only point you CAN argue without lying is that videogames are no different than any other art-from - direct the conversation away from talking about games and into the influence of art on people's behavious in general.

A good example is The Catcher in the Rye - which both Mark David Chapman (John Lennon's assassin) and John Hinkley Jr (tried to kill Reagan) carried around with them.

ObeyGiant

Dr.Feelgood wrote:

you could reduce the numbers of attacks or fatalities caused by people who have taken it too far by increasing the certification age on games-

There was a debate a while ago in the Digital Hub talking about censorship in videogames. One of the panelists was from the Film Censors Board, and was explaining about how certification/classification is useless without the kind of basic education that's needed to inform parents that games.. aren't all 'toys' any more, and that there are many games out there aimed strictly at adults. He admits that this kind of re-education isn't something that's going to be easy.

Then they mentioned the case of GTA, about where one can have sex with hookers, then beat them up and take your money back. One of the other panelists said "Oh my! My 10 year old boys have that game, and I never knew you could do that!". She looked incredibly sheepish when it was pointed out that this game is 18-rated, and her boys shouldn't have been playing it.

Dr.Feelgood wrote:

AH!! Any suggestions on how to minimise a negative influence on certain people?

Education. Less scare-mongering.

RE*AC*TOR

Back to Manhunt [from wikipedia]

In the United Kingdom the game was blamed by lawyer Jack Thompson for inciting the murder of 14 year old Stefan Pakeerah by his friend Warren Leblanc, 17 years old. However, Leicestershire Constabulary revealed [1] (http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3918) in the following weeks that the game was owned by Pakeerah, not Leblanc, and that they were satisfied that robbery to fund a drug addiction was the motivation for Leblanc's actions. This did not affect Thompson's view of the case; he has since claimed that a games magazine, rather than the police, made the statement

Dr.Feelgood

Adds on television and in papers saying,

y'know, check what rating your childs game is before you buy it for them.

i agree, who's scare mongering??

Not i, not intentionally anyway- I'm just pointing out what will be asked of me- How can you reduce these effects, and i agree-education will reduce these negative effects.

Parents need to be in control- Nowadays kids walk all over their folks.
Probably because they cant be hit and they know it,(i know thats a different subject altogether but they kind of overlap here)

steviec

koneko wrote:

In the Manhunt example, wasn't it the victim that owned the game, and not the killer?

Yep, and the parents went making wild accusations before the police came out and said there was no link whatsoever.

I think games in general can have a positive effect as much as they can have a negative effect, they no doubt help your co-ordination when playing action games and theres lots of strategy games out there that make you think. Heck I've even learned a bit of history from playing Civilization.

I don't think games make people violent, which I don't think games have ever done by the way, nobody has ever sat down to play Grand Theft Auto and then thought 'hey, killing people! Thats a good idea, I never thought of that before!' And to say these games train you to use a weapon is rubbish. They train you to use a joypad. I really don't think there has ever been a murder that would have not happened if the murderer didn't own a copy of whatever violent game had the media's attention at the time.

There are negative effects though. Championship Manager damn near ruined my life. There's an addictive nature to games, and the most engrossing games are usually one player, that can have a genuine bad impact on people. You watch a movie with friends, you can read a book in bed, but there's games that you can literally spend every waking our for weeks playing. Which can't be a good thing.

Oh and don't get me started on Counter Strike :rolleyes:

Dr.Feelgood

steviec wrote:

There are negative effects though. Championship Manager damn near ruined my life.

I know what you speak of!!

angelofdeath

here's a good movie to download thats related to the subject

http://www.own-age.com/vids/video.aspx?id=251

it's called first person shooter, made by the father of shaguar one of the top counter-strike players in the world, it's a documentary about how computer games have affected his and his sons life, unsurprisingly for the worst, check out some of the reactions of the parents, just makes you want to punch them, i mean lighten up ffs, it's only a game, sure isn't it better than their sons being drug addicts or in gangs hanging out on street corners or whatnot

Stephen

What radio station and when?

Dr.Feelgood

Its a local radio station in the Dundalk

Dundalks 97.8 FM The Word

Its a temporary licence- Only broadcasting for 10 days of which 6 are passed so if you are as far away as Dunleer you probably wont get it!!

5-7 mile radius- unless you have a very strong receiver

Blisterman

Its ridiculous that people blame video games for making kids violent.
Someones not gonna go out and kill someone, just because they saw it in a game. And just because a murderer played video games, doesn't mean that thats what made them a murderer.
Its like saying 99% of murderers have eaten bread at one point. Obviously bread makes people murderers.

Dr.Feelgood

What kind of person blames games for these things?

steviec

Dr.Feelgood wrote:

What kind of person blames games for these things?

Someone who'd rather find a scapegoat than look at the real issues.

stevenmu

Dr.Feelgood wrote:

What kind of person blames games for these things?

Lots of people prefer to just blame the first thing in sight instead of really thinking about the issue and try to determine the root causes, kind of like with the Meath bus crash recently, as soon as people heard there was no seatbelts on the bus, that immediatly became the whole problem. Nobody bothered waiting to see if seatbelts would have made a difference or checked to see if there were studies showing that setabelts in buses can be more dangerous than not having them (there are !).

There's the well known "screaming teenage girl" effect (can't remember it's correct name). I can't help wondering if there's a verifiable similar "bleeding-heart liberal" effect, where if one of them moans loudly enough about something, the rest of them all join in.

Retr0gamer

Dr.Feelgood wrote:

What kind of person blames games for these things?

Mostly concerned parents groups who need to place the blame on something rather than face the real issues, sensationalistic newspapers/arse rags like the daily mail looking for another 'ban this sick filth' headline and politicians looking for votes from these groups e.g hilary clinton.

Dr.Feelgood

My friend works for the Censorship Board for movies,games etc...

He told me that a few weeks ago they decided just to rate them on the same scale as what the games company recommend, without screening them.

I know that all movies that are put forward for cinema are watched by the Chief Censor- John Kelleher

All movies screened in cinemas in the country apart from private cinemas must be cleared by this dude!!

I know that most pornographical movies are banned without even being viewed. Can be obtained in specialist stores such as adult shops. But there are no gore stores, where can we go for banned games & banned movies in general. I didnt think Ireland was so ban crazy till i was told this.

I know there's no movie or game that could make me kill someone-
But how can you try and make others understand this.
Its not enough just to say-

I know it and thats that!!

ObeyGiant

Dr.Feelgood wrote:

He told me that a few weeks ago they decided just to rate them on the same scale as what the games company recommend, without screening them.

It makes sense, not only from a time standpoint (I can't imagine John Keleher, a 60+ year old guy sitting through all 40+ hours of Zelda to make sure it meets the standards), but also considering the open-ended games as we have today. For example, look at things like Black & White or Spore, or even Fable - games which will have different outcomes based on what the player brings to them. In the case of Fable, you can be a helpful, nice guy and pick flowers for children, or you can beat up your wife or be involved in a same-sex marriage.. things the more conservative groups would have problems with.

Rabies

Don't just look at one genre of games like FPSs. Most FPS games have a high body count. Explain the benifits that strategy and puzzel games have on mind, forward thinking, planning etc.

Sand

Youd be best to anticipate what theyre going to hit you with - the Manhunt case, GTA in general with those highway shootings those two twits carried out in the US, maybe if theyve done their research those crazy guys who beat each other to death over MMORPGs and stuff. Get the facts on them - they probably dont know that the Manhunt game was owned by the victim not the killer, and thus you can take the wind out of their sails very easily. Then you can remind them of the age ratings, and that its up to parents to enforce what their kids play seeing as theyre paying for the games.

Stress that somes games are going to have an adult nature as the average age of gamers is in the mid twenties, and rising. Childish themes arent going to cut it. Then talk about non violent games, and the various games where you can fail the mission if you injure or kill a civillian (SWAT), or games like the Thief series which encourage non violence.

And while they might complain about rising graphical quality blurring the lines and making violence all the more shocking, that works both ways. One thing I noticed about HL2 is how the enemies like the combine soldiers are dehumanised with the body armour and masks, whereas the allies are all smiles and sunshine thanks to the facial technology and you grow attached to the various resistance fighters who work along side you. The only enemy I can think of who was unmasked and human appearing was Breen.

Sad truth is youre being brought on as the evil devil to be shouted down by concerned ignorant parents wholl take offence if you dare to ask them to take an interest in what their kids are up to.

Reactors strategy of just comparing games to books, films or even music is probably the soundest. Move it on to a broader field than just bashing and defending what is still basically a niche hobby that the wider population know nothing about.

flogen

It must be some mad coincidence, but Adrian Kennedy is on at the moment talking about violence in video games, citing the whole Manhunt issue.
As expected of the show, it's full of Sun reading half wits, all of whom seem to miss the point that if a child under 18 is playing an 18's game, it's not the games fault, it's the parents/guardian and possibly the shop attendant who may have sold it to them. The fact is, that very few people under 18 have bought games consoles off their own back, they're usually birthday or christmas presents. If a parent isn't willing to keep an eye on their child while using the machine, then they have no-one to blame if things go wrong. And you also can't blame a games developer for having an effect on a mentally unstable individual, just like you can't blame Salinger for writing a book that people took odd messages from (I know that's not what you're saying, Reactor).
I would ring in but I'd be damned if I'm wasting my money arguing with people I don't know, I can do that here for free! Besides, they'd never have someone like you or I on, we might make a good point.

the_syco

flogen wrote:

it's the parents/guardian and possibly the shop attendant who may have sold it to them

See how many deaths attributed to video games were by minors. Then, you can attack at the above angle, by saying that the age limits were put on games, so the kids weren't meant to get them. This puts them as the responsible, or should I say unresponsible parents.

CiDeRmAn

Deaths made attributable to minors that had anything to do with videogames were non-stories being used to manipulate the audience, to convince them of the existence of a scapegoat, of an outside influence, an isidious malicious thing that corrupts the incorruptible young into performing monstrous acts.
This is, of course, nonsense, but then no-one wants to read and article, watch a documentary or listen to a politician who informs parents that it is their fault after all for not maintaining vigilance on the type of materials that their children have access to.

It is much more comforting to imagine monsters and one off mental delinquents are responsible for the evil in the world, much harder to admit that they are human, nay kids, just like our own.

So, if it could ever be shown, that in any particular case, a videogame has contributed to a violent act that has been commited by the child/young adult, it is that childs legal guardian, who has a legal responsibility to maintain a safe growing up enviroment, an eviroment where he/she can thrive without fear of "adult" material being used by child, it would then be the guardian who is ultimatly be liable, simply due to being remiss in their duty of care towards the child.

As was stated, Manhunt is a great example of a very well made, well marketed peice of software, but not one really suitable for anyone under 18 yet my guess is most young gamers who want it, have it and played it, despite its adult content and explicit labelling describing it so, the parents simplying discounting it as a videogame and "sure all their friends have it", then recoiling in shock at the content, feelings of betrayal pointed at the games retailers and the developers, rather than at their own stupidity and ignorance of such a large feature of their childrens lives.

Deadwing

Like too much of anything is bad for you, obviously if you spend all day in front of a screen playing games its going to have some effect on you, as int his case:

"A 13 year old boy has jumped from a high-rise building in order to join his gaming friends in Heaven, falling 24 stories to his death and leaving behind some notes.

The Tianjin boy'’s parents told reporters that their son was heavily addicted to gaming, and was behaving like somebody taking drugs. On one occasion his parents found him in a cyber cafe, having not eaten in 2 days."

http://www.igniq.com/2005/06/boy-falls-24-stories-to-his-death-to.html

Any parent who would let thier child play that much when it has obviously become an addiction is seriously lax in parenting

CiDeRmAn

Its dissapointing when a thread about a serious topic relating to gaming and its relationship with the rest of the world, its effects on the suggestible and so on gets so little attention. One would have expected that a discussion like this would have got people to think a little harder about their hobby and write down their thoughts, or maybe they don't have many thoughts to speak of.
Ah well...

koneko

This topic has come up a bazillion times before. I imagine people are just bored of writing the same thing over and over again, especially as very few people here disagree (doesn't make for a good discussion, everyone agreeing with eachother).

DonkeyStyle \o/

koneko wrote:

This topic has come up a bazillion times before. I imagine people are just bored of writing the same thing over and over again

Bingo... I couldn't be less arsed.
Try the search feature.

iregk

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Bingo... I couldn't be less arsed.

Exactly!

In either case its incredably easy to point the finger of blame at someone else rather than looking at yourself and taking the blame. In todays moderm society we are full of people who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. Somebody walks out onto the road and gets hit by a car, they sue the driver. Why? Because it was the drivers fault for driving on the road! Why on earth would they want to blame themselves for it?

The very same applies to video games. Games have a rating not for the good of their health but for a reason. GTA for example is 18. Now its a lot more profitable to rate it 3+ but no its 18+. The reason being to keep kids away from the violence. But when a kid goes to buy it and gets refused because he is to young what happens? The parents go in and buy it for them. As soon as something happens they blame the manufacturers for being irresponsible in creating these games because they refuse to take the responsibility themselves. Again its far far easier to blame someone else than to blame yourself.

CiDeRmAn

Well thats the story of our times, see it in the increasingly litigious world where personal responsiblity is reduced while we pin all the flaws and misfortunes in our life on anyone but us while we take all the credit for the good things, parents taking the easy way out when their kids are non-communicative and withdrawn to them, blaming tv and the games in their lives while letting them have Sky and a dvd player in their bedroom, and never having the time to engage with them except to tell them how disappointed they are in them. The parents think by giving into their kids every whim they are loving them more while denying the children what they need, a family enviroment in which to feel a part of, in which to feel secure.

BlitzKrieg

if you want to hit them with psychoanalysis...film theorists believe its the lack of control in a movie that creates an almost dreamlike state in your subconcious and hence the appealing power of films on the viewers desires and fears but with computer games you have an alienated form of control (the joypad) as your link to the material, therefore your subconcious has a smaller role to play in the experiance (hence earlier skill building argument).

CiDeRmAn

Interesting stuff, but I guess it still all boils down to parents blaming bad kids on anything except bad parenting, whatever form that may take. We live in a world where parents blame McDonalds for their kids being obese rather than accepting that they are responsible for the things that their children comsume, be it food or video game entertainment and other media, we wil never get through to them until, perhaps the current generation of gamers grows up and has kids and grandkids of their own. taking an interest in gaming and what they are being exposed to.

Now where is that copy of Manhunt?
My 2 year old son has to start gaming somewhere!

Griffon

That is so true

gline

i think games "can" have a bad effect on society, it can cause more and more people to be anti-social and not being able to interact with people in person. But as i said it "can" have a bad effect. It depends on the person and the self control they have. I dont know if thats what you meant by bad effects??

ObeyGiant

gline wrote:

it can cause more and more people to be anti-social and not being able to interact with people in person

Couldn't the same be said for books?

gline

ObeyGiant wrote:

Couldn't the same be said for books?

yes definitly, like i said, it depends on the person. If they want an escape from life they will use anything i suppose

Retr0gamer

gline wrote:

yes definitly, like i said, it depends on the person. If they want an escape from life they will use anything i suppose

God damn delinquints. They should just use porn like everyone else.

iregk

What effect can games have on people, check this out.

WARNING: 10min long vid clip, 56k dial up? Forget it!!!
http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=2349&NEXTID=0&PREVID=0&DISPLAYORDER=20050609151844&CAT=movies&NSFW=2&page=1

HappyCrackHead

the point is is that video games are just another medium for expression. another art form. yeah they express ideas but most are benign. ok look at the GTAs and the Manhunts with a lot of killing and i just think, well its better to shoot a cop or murder a stranger in the street in a video game than to actually go out and do it. that said games dont make people do those things. unless ur really impressionable and were brought up to be some kind of idiot then yes. but people shouldnt blame the game makers, they should blame the idiots parents.

no one has died from video games to date that im aware of. and this isnt a case of "they listened to marlyn manson". news media love a scape goat and because video games are seen as being "childish" and not as mainstream as things like movies or books means they're an easy target. personaly i feel that videogames are the only interactive art form, where everyone can make an impression especially in the digital age.

It drives me nuts to hear idiots harp on about kids playing grand theft auto or whatever else, these same idiots buy these games for their twelve year old kids. a friend of mine works in a well known games retail chain and he told me roughly 20% of the parents who purchased gta:sa where shocked/suprised when he told them it was an eighteens agame and the parents put the game back on the shelves. the other 80% he said just shrugged their shoulders. these would be parents of 14-18 year olds.

its a case of stupid parents breeding stupider kids. not the game makers. they just try to make enjoyable games.

Illuvatar

I agree with you 100% HappyCrackHead. Couldn't have put it better myself.

mewso

I think the point on violence is if a guy kills someone and it's disclosed that he played GTA for example. Does this mean that if GTA didnt exist he wouldn't have commited the killing? This is where it breaks done for me. The total inability of people to ask the right questions when terrible things happen.
9/11 - lets go kill some taliban ass. Lets not ask why or how it came about etc.
There are no metal bands recording messages backwards on their albums anymore so we have to find something else to blame. I'm with Bill Hicks* on this one. If a guy tops himself because of a game or game playing it's one less pizza delivery boy in the world.

*describing the sentiment not word for word.