World View of United States

[Aggie]

As someone who frequently plays first person shooters, I have an issue with the demonization of video games every time an incident like this happens. I agree that certain violent games shouldn't be played without guidance or sold freely to children, but not only I don't feel the sudden urge to go shoot someone after I play, nor the statistics suggest so, for instance, The Netherlands has a very high rate of video game purchases but their gun related violence is particularly low.

Yes, there is a culture that glamorizes guns, but in my view, it isn't so much that movies and video games promote that culture, but reflect it and even then, the same movies that play in the States are played everywhere else without the same effects. If your pipes leak do you blame those who take showers or the pipes themselves?

I don't blame the games; however, I do notice subjectively that the nature of the violence and the level of realism affects me more than previous generations of games. I don't think playing violent video games induces violence in those not prone to violent acts, but when one spends 1000s of hours per year lining up head shots, I don't think it's a stretch to think that certain neural pathways involving killing people get a little more reenforced in than for those who don't play such games.  Heck, I know even if I play too much solitaire on the computer, I will sometimes get images of cards flashing across my mind's eye as I'm trying to go to sleep at night.  Of course, I might be a particularly sensitive person. I recently watched a season of Dexter and found the violence a bit much for me now (I really like the show, and I used to watch it regularly, but now it makes me feel kind of anxious and stabby.  There's really not that much violence in the show, considering, so maybe my lack of exposure has re-sensitized me to violent acts).

I agree with you that video games and movies are generally a reflection of the culture, not drivers of it....  generally.  However, North America's culture (IMHO) is primarily a media-driven pop-culture that does change and respond dynamically to what's being shown on television, portrayed in the movies, sung about on the radio, and especially advertised.  Ignoring violence, would anyone like to make a case that the sexualization of 'tweens' (in dress and behaviour) was a spontaneous cultural revolution that preceded their direct targeting as a marketing demographic?  There's too close of a link between culture and media in North America to clearly say that one responds to the other, and never the other way around.  When a certain way of life, set of values or manner of behaving is portrayed and viewed repeatedly, thousand of times per year, it must have an influence on the viewer.  If this wasn't true, we would not have an advertising industry. This is the sole purpose of advertising: to modify behavior via repeated exposure.


With respect to video games, if playing military-simulation games does not make one more likely to want to pick up a gun and kill people, then why did (previous versions of) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Army#Reception]America's Army[/url] get singled out for awards and nominations like Best Use of Tax Dollars,     Honorable Mention for Best Multi-Channel Marketing and Best Advergame of 2005?  Rumour is there's a 4th generation in the works.

Ok, I might be stretching the point a bit here, as I'd need to see some firm numbers suggesting that actual recruitment numbers are influenced by military simulator games, but I don't think it's such a stretch to suggest that playing military simulators might make one a wee bit more disposed to support your country's military actions. The narrative in these games is explicitly that some situations are best dealt with by violence, even when the game doesn't put much focus on why. To say that having these games as a significant part of our culture does not have a significant influence on that culture is IMHO a bit ridiculous.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But isn't that the case with the media in general? If you watch the news there is precious little why's and when some are uttered they are completely wrong (the classic "they hate our freedoms" ). A video game may reinforce those views but to my knowledge, they are not the root cause.

Again, I don't disagree with the premise that VG can be a bad influence, I just have a problem with the idea that they are the cause.
---
There are a number of VG in the market in which you can choose to be good or bad (and/or have a karma-meter), and there is a tradeoff in each case. Is the player who decides to be evil in a game venting his/her own frustrations or is (s)he training for a real life confrontation? Again if you follow the stats, the former is drastically more possible than the latter.

[Opsa]

I can't stand violent video games and will not stick around if they are played. This is understandable however, because I am a pacifist.

What bothers me most about them is the aggression that emerges from the players. I know they are just playing, and if they are well people, it probably amounts to no more than target practice. However, I can picture an unstable person getting a bit too much fantasy out of them, a fantasy that may blur into reality. This may not be the fault of the video game, but at some point I think game makers need to recognize that these games may overstimulate unwell individuals.

Just as the NRA needs to know that here need to be regulations that would preclude mentally unstable people from buying guns, we also need to make sure than people of delicate psyche should not be exposed to things that can set them off. It's personal responsibility for people who might not be able to control themselves. If you have no history of mental illness, then you should be able to buy a gun, or a violent video game. If you're a nutcase, then you'll have to take the extra step to become criminal too if you want either of these things. Too bad!

UNTADDY SOAPBOX ALERT

I am unnerved by heads exploding in a cloud of blood. I don't like the good-guy/bad-guy idea, either. Who is to say who is the good guy? To me it seems dehumanizing, like the way The Enemy is treated in war. If we have an Enemy, then we are also The Enemy to them. So, who is right? Who deserves to have their head blown off?

The other thing that pisses me off completely is the lack of consequence. You blow a guy's head off and then move on. Never mind the guy's wife and kids who have to go on without him. As far as we know, he was their hero. No-one ever seems to freaking care about the women who loved these Enemies. Screw 'em, huh, for loving a Bad Guy? Never mind that they now have to raise the kids all by themselves. That's what they get. I hate war, real or fictitious.

Okay, I'll get down now. I have soapbox splinters in my feet from all the stomping.

[Swatopluk]

It's interesting that there are now* games on the market where the player can choose to either go 'the way of blood (and chaos)' or to go through the game deliberately not committing any act of violence against sentient beings with both ways being legitimate but possibly leading to different endings.
The player may be actually encouraged to replay several times to try out all possibilities. And all of this with a very high degree of realism.

*Dark Project (The Thief) several years ago was a case were the amount of bloodshed allowed depended on the set difficulty. Easy=kill as much as you want; normal= kill only monsters but no living human; hard=one death and you lose, even if it was not by your hand (e.g. a monster jumps at you but drops into water and drowns).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Opas, in most shooting VGs the bad guys are either zombies, monsters, or in the more realistic cases, WWII axis soldiers, warlords or mercenaries. Some franchises (like Call of Duty which started with WWII games) have become more concrete, killing Arabs (assumed terrorists) or Russians (assumed from a totalitarian regime), which goes more to your criticism. I such cases I would say that the target shouldn't be the medium (VGs), or the genre (shooters) but the specific game.

Then again in some games you can make choices, I remember playing Postal 2 in which you could kill civilians if you wanted or, for the most part, avoid killing anyone to a degree (it became a very difficult game BTW), and you can level the criticism arguing that in real life, violence will get you killed always, most frequently sooner rather than later.

[Swatopluk]

In very pernicious cases the bad guys can be identified by them using ambulances. That is not a joke and it was in at least two very different settings (one was the literal postapocalyptic game put out by the Left Behind guys, where the allies of the Antichrist used them as transport, the other (forgotten the name and company) was set in the Middle East, I think after the infamous helicopter video came out).

[Griffin NoName]

..... as a parent, I'd be very hesitant about letting my kids have toy guns

With my first son, we didn't alllow guns as toys, but he and his friends just made sticks into guns. ie. there was no getting away from shooting people as a "game". They'd leap out of the bushes as passers by walked past and shoot them with their sticks.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

As someone who frequently plays first person shooters, I have an issue with the demonization of video games every time an incident like this happens. I agree that certain violent games shouldn't be played without guidance or sold freely to children, but not only I don't feel the sudden urge to go shoot someone after I play, nor the statistics suggest so, for instance, The Netherlands has a very high rate of video game purchases but their gun related violence is particularly low.

Yes, there is a culture that glamorizes guns, but in my view, it isn't so much that movies and video games promote that culture, but reflect it and even then, the same movies that play in the States are played everywhere else without the same effects. If your pipes leak do you blame those who take showers or the pipes themselves?

I agree 100% here-- if anything, first person shooters can be a healthy outlet for feelings of aggression and competition.

And I also agree that the media is basically a mirror of what is going on in the culture itself.  These memes (the violent ones) start at a very, very early age.   By the time most kids see violent movies, it's far too late-- the meme that "violence is the correct answer to your problem" has already been well rooted in their minds, and the movie only plays to that pre-existing mindset.

I do think a lot of the "boys will be boys" mentality is partly responsible, in that turning a blind eye to boys bullying others does not help matters.  But the up-and-coming generations have had a childhood where it's (mostly) not cool to be a bully .   That could well change things, by the time they reach adulthood.

We shall see.