Esther Rantzen, the Daily Mail and some politicians are upset over a video game

[Tom4784]

'Abusers will get off on this stuff': Sony under fire for 'repulsive' video game Detroit: Become Human which shows girl, 10, 'beaten to death by her father' among a host of child abuse and domestic violence acts players watch
Set in ‘near-future’ in Detroit, game features androids, including housekeeper Kara - controlled by the player
Kara works for abusive father Todd, who has a young daughter Alice, whom he blames for marriage break-up
In one scene, Alice says, 'He's going to hurt me'; she runs upstairs as Todd follows, saying, 'Daddy's very mad'
Childline founder Dame Esther Rantzen urged publisher to remove child abuse scene or withdraw PS4 game

A video game depicting child abuse and domestic violence was condemned as ‘repulsive’ last night by MPs and campaigners.

In one harrowing scene, a girl aged about ten is heard screaming as her father apparently beats her to death in her bedroom.

Elsewhere, she says: ‘He’s coming, he’s going to hurt me.’ In another sequence, the child runs upstairs trailed menacingly by her belt-wielding father who shouts: ‘Alice, Daddy’s very mad.’

The multi-million pound game, Detroit: Become Human, is likely to be a hit when launched next year by Japanese games giant Sony. It is already available to pre-order on Amazon for £46.

Childline founder Dame Esther Rantzen called the game – made for the PlayStation 4 console – ‘sick and repulsive’.

She urged publisher Sony Interactive Entertainment to either remove the child abuse scene or withdraw the game.

Dame Esther told The Mail on Sunday: ‘Violence against children is not entertainment. It’s not a game. It’s a real nightmare for thousands of children who have to live through these kinds of scenarios. The makers of this game should be thoroughly ashamed. I think it’s perverse. Who thinks beating a child is entertainment?’

Andy Burrows, of the NSPCC, added: ‘Any video game that trivialises or normalises child abuse, neglect or domestic violence for entertainment is unacceptable.’

But the man who wrote and directed the game tried to deflect the criticism of the abuse scene by describing it as ‘very strong and moving’.

Set in the ‘near-future’ in the US city Detroit, the game features lifelike androids which have become part of society.

Players take on the role of one of them, cyborg housekeeper Kara, and can decide how the story unfolds by making choices with their controllers, prompted by options flashing up on screen.

Kara goes to work for Todd, an abusive father, who orders her to clean the house and look after his daughter Alice. The storyline soon takes a dark turn with Todd exploding with rage over dinner and blaming his daughter for the break-up of his marriage.

Throwing the dining table at the wall, he screams at Alice: ‘Maybe you think this is easy, maybe you think it’s my fault your ********** mother took off. ********** ***** walked out on me for a ********** accountant.’

It is at this point that a petrified Alice runs upstairs.

Screams are then heard before Todd lays Alice’s lifeless body on the bed saying: ‘It’s all over now, Daddy isn’t angry any more.’

He then turns on Kara and screams: ‘This is all your fault.’

By choosing from a variety of options, the game offers players the chance to prevent Alice’s apparent death. Kara can run upstairs with the girl, for instance, or lock a door or try to reason with Todd. Each option has different outcomes.

In one, Kara is punched in the face by Todd. In another, Alice picks up her father’s gun and shoots him in the back to stop him beating Kara. Earlier, the android examines a picture apparently drawn by Alice showing a maid with her arm broken off, suggesting Todd has a history of abuse. In another clip, Todd screams at Kara: ‘She [Alice] is mine. I do what I want with her,’ Then he strikes the android in the face as his daughter looks on.

Detroit: Become Human is not the first game to spark controversy. The Grand Theft Auto series of video games – in which players roam around cities stealing cars and killing – have routinely been criticised for gratuitous depictions of graphic sex, violence and drug use.

In 2005, one version of the game, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, caused outrage after it emerged that it contained secret sex scenes that players could unlock.

The NSPCC’s Mr Burrows said research has shown that ‘children and young people often play 18+ games before they reach this age’.

And Peter Saunders, founder of the National Association of People Abused in Childhood, said: ‘Abusers will get off on this stuff and the other thing we know beyond question is that videos games end up being played by children and, scarily, the proliferation of salacious and abusive images is actually encouraging violence and abuse.

Detroit: Become Human is not the first game to spark controversy. In 2005, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas caused outrage after it emerged that it contained secret sex scenes that players could unlock +5
Detroit: Become Human is not the first game to spark controversy. In 2005, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas caused outrage after it emerged that it contained secret sex scenes that players could unlock

‘And we know that abuse in all its forms is escalating on this planet so why not help to tackle it constructively rather than sensationalise and make money out if it?’

Tory MP Damian Collins, Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, said: ‘It is completely wrong for domestic violence to be part of a video game regardless of what the motivation is. Domestic violence is not a game and this simply trivialises it. I worry that people who play this who themselves have suffered abuse will use this game to shape the way in which they deal with abusers.

‘It’s dangerous to plant the seed in people’s minds that the way to deal with abusers is to use violence against them. It’s counter-productive and could put them in even more danger.’

The game has been developed by French firm Quantic Dream. One of their previous adventure games, Heavy Rain, cost £35 million to develop and market and ended up banking Sony more than £88 million.

Last night Quantic did not respond to requests by The Mail on Sunday for comment. David Cage, who wrote and directed the game, has defended it. He told an interviewer: ‘If you look really into the game and if you play it you’ll understand that the game is not about domestic abuse. It’s a part of Kara’s [the android’s] story – she’s not a victim and she has a beautiful story. Hopefully you will be moved by what happens.’

Asked about the abuse scene, Mr Cage said: ‘For me it’s a very strong and moving scene, and I was interested to put the player in the position of this woman. I chose her point of view.’ He added: ‘What’s important to me, and what’s important in Detroit is to say that a game is as legitimate as a film or a book or a play to explore any topic such as domestic abuse.’

But Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield, said that whatever the makers’ motivations ‘it seems to end up in a clumsy, inappropriate and graphic game play that is no more than an unpleasant exploitative way of making money off the back of real suffering’.

Last night, The Video Standards Council, which is responsible for deciding computer game age ratings, refused to say whether or not they would grant it a classification and allow the game to be released.

A spokesman said: ‘Any decision to refuse a certificate is not taken lightly and to the extent we consider necessary we are able to consult our advisory panel of leading psychologists and legal experts.’

Sony Interactive Entertainment declined to comment.

ESTHER RANTZEN: This isn't just savage - it's highly dangerous
'Criminals who attack children often create similar fantasies in their imaginations before they act them out. Such a criminal would regard this game as a validation,' says Esther Rantzen +5
'Criminals who attack children often create similar fantasies in their imaginations before they act them out. Such a criminal would regard this game as a validation,' says Esther Rantzen

There was a time – more cruel and less civilised than ours – when public executions were enjoyed as entertainment.

In those savage days, crowds watched old women being drowned as witches and animals tortured for fun.

But I’ve never heard of little girls being beaten with a belt as part of a game. That, in my view, is not just savage, it’s seriously damaging.

Who would play such a game for fun? People who are impervious to the suffering of children.

At Childline I have listened to the voices of beaten children.

I remember a paediatrician telling me of a child whose body carried the scars of dozens of ferocious beatings with a belt.

How could anyone even contemplate creating a video game with that as a ‘fun’ element in it?

Then there is the added danger that a child might play this hideous game – perhaps a child who lives with violence, who has been beaten or watched parents physically fighting.

How many nightmares will this game provoke?

Criminals who attack children often create similar fantasies in their imaginations before they act them out. Such a criminal would regard this game as a validation.

The designers of video games have a duty to protect children, and that responsibility extends to protecting virtual children.

We never want anyone to believe that beating a child to death with a belt is the stuff of entertainment. It should never be trivialised or turned into a game.

I call upon Sony Interactive Entertainment to think again and withdraw this game, or at least remove this scene where a virtual child is put in life-threatening danger. If you don’t, real children may suffer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5140165/Detroit-Human-video-game-branded-repulsive.html

The trailer for the context that these stupid politicians and Esther Rantzen seemed to miss out on.

x-rZox_tFhM

Bit of a continuation from another topic I made a while back.

It bothers me that people will take issue with this game (which, you can tell from the trailer neither glamorises or normalises abuse) yet they'll happily sit around with their families and watch Bethany from Corrie getting sexually abused for almost a year with nary a peep. Games can tackle issues just as well as TV shows can, as games become more cinematic, the gap between narratives of games and traditional mediums like Film and TV are becoming smaller.

I also dislike the whole 'protect our children from EVIL video games!' angle it took with the mention that most children play violent video games before they are old enough to buy them but that's surely the fault of the parents? Most games cost around £30-60 so it's not likely these kids are buying them themselves and even if they are, a kid won't be sold something like GTA unless an adult buys it for them. If a parent can't be bothered to notice the massive age ratings on the game boxes when they buy them then that's their fault that they are buying games meant for older audiences. It's up to parents to pay attention to what they are buying their kids to decide whether or not their children are mature enough to play games meant for an older audience.

Ultimately though, these idiot people speaking out really need to understand the context before they condemn something they were likely told about and probably haven't even seen for themselves.

[arista]

Yes was debated on Ch5HD Live Am
its a 18 Game.

No one views the death of the child.

Its more about the Police Android female assistant.

Its out in 4 weeks or so..............

[bots]

there is worse than this on the TV all the time. One particular series that comes to mind was 24 where they had a kid being abused by her father. If we just hide it away and pretend it doesn't exist, how can kids prepare themselves for the big wide world

[arista]

there is worse than this on the TV all the time. One particular series that comes to mind was 24 where they had a kid being abused by her father. If we just hide it away and pretend it doesn't exist, how can kids prepare themselves for the big wide world

Yes and Film
that what the makers say.......................


Ref : Ch5HD AM Live debate.

[Crimson Dynamo]

'Abusers will get off on this stuff'

https://media.giphy.com/media/PcoTAxTZeqBrO/giphy.gif

[arista]

'Abusers will get off on this stuff'

https://media.giphy.com/media/PcoTAxTZeqBrO/giphy.gif


As they do on Films..........................

[Crimson Dynamo]

As they do on Films..........................

they wont be shelling out 44 squid on a game for a cut scene

that is for sure

[Vicky.]

It bothers me that people will take issue with this game (which, you can tell from the trailer neither glamorises or normalises abuse) yet they'll happily sit around with their families and watch Bethany from Corrie getting sexually abused for almost a year with nary a peep. Games can tackle issues just as well as TV shows can, as games become more cinematic, the gap between narratives of games and traditional mediums like Film and TV are becoming smaller.

Well yes, quite. I don't know what else to say on this to be quite honest.

[Oliver_W]

Unless the game has a level where you actually control the abuser, the people moaning about this must have the brain power and analytical skills of Anita Sarkeesian. It's clearly not showing the actions in a good light.

[Toy Soldier]

The story here is basically "77 year old woman doesn't understand what modern video games are and gets very angry about stuff".

Backed up by others from another time / generation. They "get it" when it's movies, or TV, but to them, games are "things like Mario" that are a bit of lighthearted fun... Therefore, if there's abuse in a game, it must be for the sake of lighthearted fun.

Meh. They'll die off soon enough :shrug:.

[Kizzy]

And people say desensitisation isn't a 'thing'...

[Jamie89]

Qh2sWSVRrmo

[Brillopad]

The story here is basically "77 year old woman doesn't understand what modern video games are and gets very angry about stuff".

Backed up by others from another time / generation. They "get it" when it's movies, or TV, but to them, games are "things like Mario" that are a bit of lighthearted fun... Therefore, if there's abuse in a game, it must be for the sake of lighthearted fun.

Meh. They'll die off soon enough :shrug:.

It won’t be long before people are saying that about those currently in their 30s. 35 is after-all official middle age. Best not wish your life away.

[Kizzy]

'Modern' video games are about the normalisation of violence and/ or abuse, mocking those who highlight this as a issue reiterates my point.

[Toy Soldier]

It won’t be long before people are saying that about those currently in their 30s. 35 is after-all official middle age. Best not wish your life away.:shrug: If I ever start to be ignorant and judgemental of things that younger generations enjoy that I don't understand, then I expect they'll be happy to see me go too.

[Toy Soldier]

'Modern' video games are about the normalisation of violence and/ or abuse, mocking those who highlight this as a issue reiterates my point.They aren't, and it's not really wise to pass judgement on things that you have no experience of, and don't engage in yourself. All you're doing here is parroting what you've read elsewhere.

[Kizzy]

They aren't, and it's not really wise to pass judgement on things that you have no experience of, and don't engage in yourself. All you're doing here is parroting what you've read elsewhere.

You're passing judgement on this '77yr old woman' ... Why are you presuming she has no experience, you're coming across as both ageist and sexist, why shouldn't she or myself have a say on this topic?

What a strange controlling thing to state, you are effectively standing atop your soapbox and denying her an opinion.

There are several things I don't have direct experience of, mass murder, fondue, being a boxing champion... it doesn't stop me having an opinion on them.
To be fair to Esther she has worked with childline for decades I don't know how you can say isn't qualified to comment on this distasteful virtual voyerism dressed up as 'entertainment' ... It's very odd.

[Brillopad]

You're passing judgement on this '77yr old woman' ... Why are you presuming she has no experience, you're coming across as both ageist and sexist, why shouldn't she or myself have a say on this topic?

What a strange controlling thing to state, you are effectively standing atop your soapbox and denying her an opinion.

There are several things I don't have direct experience of, mass murder, fondue, being a boxing champion... it doesn't stop me having an opinion on them.
To be fair to Esther she has worked with childline for decades I don't know how you can say isn't qualified to comment on this distasteful virtual voyerism dressed up as 'entertainment' ... It's very odd.

Agree on this.

[Toy Soldier]

You're passing judgement on this '77yr old woman' ... Why are you presuming she has no experience, you're coming across as both ageist and sexist, why shouldn't she or myself have a say on this topic?

What a strange controlling thing to state, you are effectively standing atop your soapbox and denying her an opinion.

There are several things I don't have direct experience of, mass murder, fondue, being a boxing champion... it doesn't stop me having an opinion on them.
To be fair to Esther she has worked with childline for decades I don't know how you can say isn't qualified to comment on this distasteful virtual voyerism dressed up as 'entertainment' ... It's very odd.

I very much doubt that she, or you, have ever extensively played a modern narrative-driven video game and so no... she isn't qualified to comment on what it is or what effect it has. Of course she's entitled to her opinion on it - as are you - but the fact is, because she demonstrably has absolutely zero idea what she's talking about, having never taken part in this form of media in ANY way let alone this specific example, her archaic opinion on it is worth precisely sh*t. Which is fitting - as she appears to have pulled it out of her arse.

[Jamie89]

You're passing judgement on this '77yr old woman' ... Why are you presuming she has no experience, you're coming across as both ageist and sexist, why shouldn't she or myself have a say on this topic?

What a strange controlling thing to state, you are effectively standing atop your soapbox and denying her an opinion.

There are several things I don't have direct experience of, mass murder, fondue, being a boxing champion... it doesn't stop me having an opinion on them.
To be fair to Esther she has worked with childline for decades I don't know how you can say isn't qualified to comment on this distasteful virtual voyerism dressed up as 'entertainment' ... It's very odd.

It's not just commenting on what's in the games though, it's commenting on the effect the games have on people playing them, isn't it? If you haven't played them how can you know what effect they have?
And if the issue isn't that it might have an effect on people and just that it's distasteful, then could the same not be said about a lot of films and TV shows and that they also shouldn't show topics like child abuse or any kind of violence at all in the name of entertainment?
Does entertainment have to be PG? Can it not provoke thought about issues and contain adult themes? And why is it one rule for one form of entertainment and another for something else?

[Withano]

The game to me, looks like a pretty valuable lesson in the things you can do to stop an abusive parent, and ultimately save a childs life?.. If anyone has a problem with that, I'd argue that they're more of a problem than the game by miles.

[Toy Soldier]

It's not just commenting on what's in the games though, it's commenting on the effect the games have on people playing them, isn't it? If you haven't played them how can you know what effect they have?
And if the issue isn't that it might have an effect on people and just that it's distasteful, then could the same not be said about a lot of films and TV shows and that they also shouldn't show topics like child abuse or any kind of violence at all in the name of entertainment?
Does entertainment have to be PG? Can it not provoke thought about issues and contain adult themes? And why is it one rule for one form of entertainment and another for something else?

The rule of thumb is "if it didn't exist when I was a young'un, it is strange and corrupting our youth!"

See... 70 years ago, the older generations DID believe this sort of rabid, reactionary nonsense about cinema. 50 years ago, they believed it about television. Today, it's video games and / or sometimes "The Internet" that is the "terrible demon amongst us". I wasn't being flippant when I said this older generation will die off soon enough and people will forget that gaming was ever demonized as being any different to television or movies... that is exactly what will happen.

[Toy Soldier]

The game to me, looks like a pretty valuable lesson in the things you can do to stop an abusive parent, and ultimately save a childs life?.. If anyone has a problem with that, I'd argue that they're more of a problem than the game by miles.

I'd be very, very surprised if she's even seen the game footage or read anything about the actual content tbqfh. Someone has said to her "Hey Esther - this game has a scene in it that features child abuse!" and she has instantly gone off on one, no doubt imagining a 2D sprite of a bearded leather-bound thug beating up a child whilst a 9 year old hammers on a SNES controller and cackles.

[Brillopad]

The game to me, looks like a pretty valuable lesson in the things you can do to stop an abusive parent, and ultimately save a childs life?.. If anyone has a problem with that, I'd argue that they're more of a problem than the game by miles.

You would.

[Kizzy]

I very much doubt that she, or you, have ever extensively played a modern narrative-driven video game and so no... she isn't qualified to comment on what it is or what effect it has. Of course she's entitled to her opinion on it - as are you - but the fact is, because she demonstrably has absolutely zero idea what she's talking about, having never taken part in this form of media in ANY way let alone this specific example, her archaic opinion on it is worth precisely sh*t. Which is fitting - as she appears to have pulled it out of her arse.

So you can only comment on things you have extensive experience of?

I will be looking forward to you deleting 100s of comments specifically applicable to women then..
What an unjustified, aggressive and unpleasant response.

She is entitled to an opinion on this topic, as am I ... I am shocked at the voracity of your reaction and more than a little concerned if I'm honest.

[Withano]

You would.

Why wouldnt you(?) anyone(?) not want a game which visually explains the precautions a person could take to stop a child from dying at the hands of their abusive parent to exist. Literally please give one reason or shut up.

[Toy Soldier]

So you can only comment on things you have extensive experience of?

I will be looking forward to you deleting 100s of comments specifically applicable to women then..
What an unjustified, aggressive and unpleasant response.

She is entitled to an opinion on this topic, as am I ... I am shocked at the voracity of your reaction and more than a little concerned if I'm honest.

I didn't say she needs to have extensive experience of it. I said she doesn't have ANY experience of it.

I also said she's entitled to her opinion. I'm only pointing out that her opinion is ignorant, archaic, uninformed, reactionary nonsense. In my opinion, of course.

[Brillopad]

Why wouldnt you(?) anyone(?) not want a game which visually explains the precautions a person could take to stop a child from dying at the hands of their abusive parent to exist. Literally please give one reason or shut up.

:pat:

[Withano]

:pat:

I would never pat you on the head no offence

[Jamie89]

The rule of thumb is "if it didn't exist when I was a young'un, it is strange and corrupting our youth!"

See... 70 years ago, the older generations DID believe this sort of rabid, reactionary nonsense about cinema. 50 years ago, they believed it about television. Today, it's video games and / or sometimes "The Internet" that is the "terrible demon amongst us". I wasn't being flippant when I said this older generation will die off soon enough and people will forget that gaming was ever demonized as being any different to television or movies... that is exactly what will happen.

Yeah I think there's a lot of truth in that. Even saying that though video game violence isn't even that much of a new thing anyway (maybe new in the sense that much older people might not be too aware of it, but not so new that we can't tell whether or not there is an impact). I was playing games as a kid on the N64 where I'd shoot and stab people :laugh: and I'm not a violent person in the slightest. And however more realistic games are these days to say 20 years ago, they're still not as realistic as TV and film.

[Kizzy]

It's not just commenting on what's in the games though, it's commenting on the effect the games have on people playing them, isn't it? If you haven't played them how can you know what effect they have?
And if the issue isn't that it might have an effect on people and just that it's distasteful, then could the same not be said about a lot of films and TV shows and that they also shouldn't show topics like child abuse or any kind of violence at all in the name of entertainment?
Does entertainment have to be PG? Can it not provoke thought about issues and contain adult themes? And why is it one rule for one form of entertainment and another for something else?

It is yes, and I would feel exactly the same way about films that have this type of content.

My feeling is what mindset calls watching 'playing' something like this 'entertainment'? You have touched upon you it repulses me there, the sight sound and overall control of what happens to a virtual child is 'enjoyable' it's entertaining' you might think I'm oversensitive... think that this appeals to the undersensitive.. it's my opinion, there's no way I'll apologise for my reactions.

[Kizzy]

I didn't say she needs to have extensive experience of it. I said she doesn't have ANY experience of it.

I also said she's entitled to her opinion. I'm only pointing out that her opinion is ignorant, archaic, uninformed, reactionary nonsense. In my opinion, of course.

You're presuming she doesn't from a place of prejudice and ignorance, as your presumptions are based on the fact she's old... and that's it :/

[Withano]

It's not just commenting on what's in the games though, it's commenting on the effect the games have on people playing them, isn't it? If you haven't played them how can you know what effect they have?
And if the issue isn't that it might have an effect on people and just that it's distasteful, then could the same not be said about a lot of films and TV shows and that they also shouldn't show topics like child abuse or any kind of violence at all in the name of entertainment?
Does entertainment have to be PG? Can it not provoke thought about issues and contain adult themes? And why is it one rule for one form of entertainment and another for something else?.

But the abuser is being portrayed as a villain, who will inevitably lose, so I don't really see the argument there? Like nobodys gonna play that game and be like "woah, Todd seemed to have a right laugh, I wish I was more like him". After spending hours of gameplay destroying and defeating him.

[Jamie89]

It is yes, and I would feel exactly the same way about films that have this type of content.

My feeling is what mindset calls watching 'playing' something like this 'entertainment'? You have touched upon you it repulses me there, the sight sound and overall control of what happens to a virtual child is 'enjoyable' it's entertaining' you might think I'm oversensitive... think that this appeals to the undersensitive.. it's my opinion, there's no way I'll apologise for my reactions.

I suppose it's just general escapism into a story. Different games have different purposes, as do different film and tv genres, but this one seems to be about a broader sense of story and how small decisions can have a big impact, and so serious scenarios were used. There's lots of different scenarios within the game (I think from what I've heard which is only a little), it's not all focused on this particular example of child abuse, and basically in each scenario you make choices to try and achieve the best outcome for the characters involved and that's what it's really about. It's not about child abuse and it doesn't seem to be glorifying child abuse. It's using it as a plot device yes, and fair enough if that's distasteful to some, but if we're talking about the mindset of the people playing it, it's not geared around wanting to see or 'play' with child abuse at all, it's merely a plot point and the actual motives in playing the game are something else entirely.

[Toy Soldier]

You're presuming she doesn't from a place of prejudice and ignorance, as your presumptions are based on the fact she's old... and that's it :/

No, my presumption is based on the fact that she's describing the situation in an inaccurate manner, as are you, because like her, you clearly haven't bothered to look into this actual game / scene at all before passing comment, and are doing so purely based on "word of mouth" about it, and your inaccurate preconceptions of gaming in general.

It is yes, and I would feel exactly the same way about films that have this type of content.

My feeling is what mindset calls watching 'playing' something like this 'entertainment'? You have touched upon you it repulses me there, the sight sound and overall control of what happens to a virtual child is 'enjoyable' it's entertaining' you might think I'm oversensitive... think that this appeals to the undersensitive.. it's my opinion, there's no way I'll apologise for my reactions.

You, like those others who are so horrified, seem to be making the assumption that the viewer is in control of the abuser or the child, which is not the case... it's actually a decision-making interactive storyline where you are attempting to prevent the child from being harmed.

The talk of "games" and "playing" is, in the context of modern gaming, purely semantics and I do get why it sounds odd to those who don't engage in this activity. For the mostpart it's a throwback, in my opinion, and paints the activity - unfairly - as being more frivolous than, say, being a fan of cinema.

IF you truly feel like it's a subject that shouldn't be addressed by ANY medium then that's a different debate entirely, I suppose, but I think that's a bit of misdirection and not entirely true. After all - I haven't seen you, or Ms Rantzen, beating the war drums about Coronation Street or EastEnders - both of which have featured MULTIPLE child abuse storylines, and even more spousal abuse storylines - all as prime time pre-watershed family viewing. And usually with absolutely NO attempt to examine the situations morally or psychologically... pure, cheap entertainment. Where's the hand-wringing over that? There is none. But there is here, "because games", and because ignorance.

[Jamie89]

But the abuser is being portrayed as a villain, who will inevitably lose, so I don't really see the argument there? Like nobodys gonna play that game and be like "woah, Todd seemed to have a right laugh, I wish I was more like him". After spending hours of gameplay destroying and defeating him.

(are you still quoting the wrong post :laugh: I'm confused)

[Withano]

(are you still quoting the wrong post :laugh: I'm confused)

Idk i think i read it wrong anyway lol

[Kizzy]

No, my presumption is based on the fact that she's describing the situation in an inaccurate manner, as are you, because like her, you clearly haven't bothered to look into this actual game / scene at all before passing comment, and are doing so purely based on "word of mouth" about it, and your inaccurate preconceptions of gaming in general.



You, like those others who are so horrified, seem to be making the assumption that the viewer is in control of the abuser or the child, which is not the case... it's actually a decision-making interactive storyline where you are attempting to prevent the child from being harmed.

The talk of "games" and "playing" is, in the context of modern gaming, purely semantics and I do get why it sounds odd to those who don't engage in this activity. For the mostpart it's a throwback, in my opinion, and paints the activity - unfairly - as being more frivolous than, say, being a fan of cinema.

IF you truly feel like it's a subject that shouldn't be addressed by ANY medium then that's a different debate entirely, I suppose, but I think that's a bit of misdirection and not entirely true. After all - I haven't seen you, or Ms Rantzen, beating the war drums about Coronation Street or EastEnders - both of which have featured MULTIPLE child abuse storylines, and even more spousal abuse storylines - all as prime time pre-watershed family viewing. And usually with absolutely NO attempt to examine the situations morally or psychologically... pure, cheap entertainment. Where's the hand-wringing over that? There is none. But there is here, "because games", and because ignorance.

You are coming across as very rude and arrogant here TS, but I'll soldier on if I may.

When did I say this? You are again making presumptions... My feelings are ; why did sony use this trailer? who does it appeal to and why?
Are people buying the game as 'escapism... if so why do you need to escape to a format where fathers kill their children?
Is this the 'last taboo'... in an increasingly unshockable world is this specifically designed to push those boundaries?

I personally don't keep up with soap plotlines,but then you aren't paying £46 to watch ken barlow twat some kid about nor does he own an android he keeps abusing and reprogramming.

You could say that the issues in corrers are real life situations that are sensitively handled such as the recent grooming storylineI read about recently... Are you really aligning this virtual reality fantasy to anything that could be taken as a real life scenario? Real life abused children don't have android maidservants to help them...sorry to burst your bubble.

You are playing it, it's a game... it's an interactive story, virtual realityesque game what else are you doing? You aren't participating in it, it isn't a sport.

[smudgie]

Am I the only old beggar that doesn't have a problem with it.
If this game has been passed by the censors I can't see a problem.
If it has an age limit on it then it's up to the parents to prevent the kids from watching/playing it.
If as has been stated on this thread that you are given options on how to change the outcome then bring it on.
Adverts on child abuse have been around for years, it's not something to be swept under the carpet.
This from someone who was a very violently abused child who had no idea what to do about it at the time.

[Toy Soldier]

To be fair I do question their use of that specific scene in the public trailer. It probably was a marketing decision made for sensationalist reasons but, there, it's important to remember that the creative minds behind creating the game and it's content are not the ones who are advertising it.

If they had kept this scene out of the trailer, then only people who are actually interested in the game would have seen it, and we wouldn't have to put up with Esther's crowing.

[bots]

It is a bit sad when in order to try and give a story impact that they have to resort to using Esther. What that highlights is that they are talking out their arses :laugh:

[Northern Monkey]

Anyone would think this didn’t happen in 2009 -

G7vBol8wud0

There’s been violence in video games for years

[Beso]

No need for this in gaming.

[Toy Soldier]

Anyone would think this didn’t happen in 2009 -

G7vBol8wud0

There’s been violence in video games for years

See, I did actually find the MW2 sequence a bit much, with the major difference being that you are the aggressor in that situation (I know they tried to cover it up with some BS about how you didn't have to shoot and could just be passive... but the clear intention is that you participate). I still wouldn't be screeching "Ban Dis Filf" but I can understand why there are some issues with it. It's also miles from GTA "cartoony" violence.

No need for this in gaming.

Again I can understand if some people think there's no place for it in creative media full stop (so no need for it in movies or on TV either). I don't particularly AGREE that creative media shouldn't feature uncomfortable adult themes, I'd strongly argue against the world going that way - but it is still a valid and logical standpoint. However, saying "in gaming" specifically whilst believing that it's fine in other forms of media such as in movies or on television, or even in written fiction, just demonstrates a misunderstanding of how gaming has evolved over the last 20 or so years.

[Tom4784]

'Modern' video games are about the normalisation of violence and/ or abuse, mocking those who highlight this as a issue reiterates my point.

Can you give examples of games where abuse is normalised? I'd be very interested to here what you have to say since you seem to know a lot about video games.

[Beso]

See, I did actually find the MW2 sequence a bit much, with the major difference being that you are the aggressor in that situation (I know they tried to cover it up with some BS about how you didn't have to shoot and could just be passive... but the clear intention is that you participate). I still wouldn't be screeching "Ban Dis Filf" but I can understand why there are some issues with it. It's also miles from GTA "cartoony" violence.



Again I can understand if some people think there's no place for it in creative media full stop (so no need for it in movies or on TV either). I don't particularly AGREE that creative media shouldn't feature uncomfortable adult themes, I'd strongly argue against the world going that way - but it is still a valid and logical standpoint. However, saying "in gaming" specifically whilst believing that it's fine in other forms of media such as in movies or on television, or even in written fiction, just demonstrates a misunderstanding of how gaming has evolved over the last 20 or so years.

Unless you are a simpleton who gets erect over vg characters then i reitterate, that there is no place for this in video gaming.

[Beso]

Can you give examples of games where abuse is normalised? I'd be very interested to here what you have to say since you seem to know a lot about video games.

Farcry and grand theft auto.

[Kizzy]

Can you give examples of games where abuse is normalised? I'd be very interested to here what you have to say since you seem to know a lot about video games.

None yet, this seems to be the ground breaker... as I said it is the trailer the USP for the game isn't it?

And as I said earlier there are many topics I don't have a lot of knowledge about insofar as direct experience of, and I'm sure you don't have experience in the issues I have experience in, that doesn't mean I would ever deny your right to have an opinion .... that would be repressive.

[Toy Soldier]

Farcry and grand theft auto.

There is no form of domestic abuse in any of the Farcry games, nor is there ever violence against children in the GTA games, and also, ANYTHING is the GTA games is quite clearly intended as parody.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there are depictions of abuse in either of those titles.

[Kizzy]

There is no form of domestic abuse in any of the Farcry games, nor is there ever violence against children in the GTA games, and also, ANYTHING is the GTA games is quite clearly intended as parody.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there are depictions of abuse in either of those titles.

Parody as in comedy, so you can comically play to attack and kill people? Games are modded to be able to rape characters, like I said how far can games go before they become simply abusive voyeuristic titillation?

Her avatar was asked to strip off her clothes at gunpoint and was then shot by a male character who told her he wanted to rape her.
She couldn’t see what he was doing (the screen goes black after a character dies), but she could hear him assaulting her character.
Correa wrote: “On the surface, I feel that it looks shallow. I was told I was going to get raped by a person I’ve never met, probably somewhere I’ve never been. I will more than likely never come into contact with that person in game again. I was a pixelated person in a computer generated world.
“But DayZ scared me. Its players have the capability to hurt other players in real time. In DayZ, you can make characters suffer. You can kidnap. You can torture. You can make it a long death. You can make it an even longer awful existence.”
The GTA games have previously come under fire for their violent sex scenes that have been accused of “deliberately degrading women.” Rockstar Games, the makers behind GTA V, have not yet responded to a request for comment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11030801/Grand-Theft-Auto-video-game-male-avatars-are-virtually-raping-women.html

[Brother Leon]

The game looks awesome so they can all do one tbh.

[Vicky.]

Video games are not my thing at all..but all of this kickoff about this game is making me want to try it, just to see what the fuss is about tbh :laugh: Which I am sure was not the point of the kickoffs, but it is the result, for me anyway

[Kizzy]

The game looks awesome so they can all do one tbh.

See.... totally desensitised already ;)

[Brillopad]

Video games are not my thing at all..but all of this kickoff about this game is making me want to try it, just to see what the fuss is about tbh :laugh: Which I am sure was not the point of the kickoffs, but it is the result, for me anyway

Boys toys - aggression is not just about hormones but also about choice of toys.

For me the difference would be about how engrossed boys get into games and how they replay them many times, whereas they tend to watch a film once and once watched it is put to bed.

As a mother of 3 boys I have seen and heard how bl**dy engrossed they get in games. I have run upstairs before now hearing my son shouting thinking something awful has happened only to discover it was all about a game., he was so flipping engrossed in a game he was shouting at it. He has never done that with a film.

[Vicky.]

Boys toys - aggression is not just about hormones but also about choice of toys.

For me the difference would be about how engrossed boys get into games and how they replay them many times, whereas they tend to watch a film once and once watched it is put to bed.

As a mother of 3 boys I have seen and heard how bl**dy engrossed they get in games. I have run upstairs before now hearing my son shouting thinking something awful has happened only to discover it was all about a game., he was so flipping engrossed in a game he was shouting at it. He has never done that with a film.

Yeah some kids do get very into the games. We have this quite often with Gavins kids. Obviously mine are a bit young for stuff like this (though my daughter does like a bit of sonic :D And gets very frustrated)

A few times we have heard a barrage of expletives come from his daughter (13) or his son (15) and have gone flying upstairs thinking they have hurt themselves or something, only to be confronted with a red faced sweary teenager who has just been killed in a game or something :laugh:

[Brillopad]

Yeah some kids do get very into the games. We have this quite often with Gavins kids. Obviously mine are a bit young for stuff like this (though my daughter does like a bit of sonic :D And gets very frustrated)

A few times we have heard a barrage of expletives come from his daughter (13) or his son (15) and have gone flying upstairs thinking they have hurt themselves or something, only to be confronted with a red faced sweary teenager who has just been killed in a game or something :laugh:

That sounds familiar! :joker:

[Withano]

Not to be on both sides on the fence in one thread, but if this woman had an issue with GTA, I'd mostly agree.

You are playing as the villain in GTA whilst trying to escape cops, and that doesn't seem appropriate imo. This game that this woman kicked up a fuss about honestly seems like the most opposite to that imaginable though. Your aim is to protect and be the hero.

[Beso]

There is no form of domestic abuse in any of the Farcry games, nor is there ever violence against children in the GTA games, and also, ANYTHING is the GTA games is quite clearly intended as parody.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there are depictions of abuse in either of those titles.

Amimal and physical abuse are available 1 minute into each game

[Toy Soldier]

Boys toys - aggression is not just about hormones but also about choice of toys.

For me the difference would be about how engrossed boys get into games and how they replay them many times, whereas they tend to watch a film once and once watched it is put to bed.

As a mother of 3 boys I have seen and heard how bl**dy engrossed they get in games. I have run upstairs before now hearing my son shouting thinking something awful has happened only to discover it was all about a game., he was so flipping engrossed in a game he was shouting at it. He has never done that with a film.

That's just because of the element of interaction, though, if the protagonist in a game dies its (usually) because you ****ed up and made a mistake that caused the failure, whereas in a film you're a passive observer and whatever happens is pre-scripted. That said if it escalates to real aggression / throwing controllers etc. then there's an anger problem that goes way beyond games. Most people don't start throwing things around and screeching when they lose in a game and, if they do, they're the same kids who are throwing red-faced kicks and punches when they lose at football or any other physical sport (Andy Murray smashing tennis racquets springs to mind - not all tennis players do it!).

For the rest of it... It's pretty out of touch / sexist to assume that gaming is "for boys". Back in the 90's maybe this was true, but these days the majority of kids and teens (male and female) do at least a bit of gaming, and plenty are just as "into it" as boys. For regular gaming I would say there's still a split but it's at most 70/30, and that's mainly only because of the stigma that it's "tomboyish" and that girls should be more interested in make-up, boyfriends and gossip. As a feminist, I would have thought you would want to steer clear of those sort of stereotypes.

[Toy Soldier]

Amimal and physical abuse are available 1 minute into each gameAnimal and physical abuse are available every time you step out of your front door... It doesn't mean you have to do it.

Though to be fair, I will agree that the more recent FarCry games have been a bit heavy on the animal hunting.

However, this thread is specifically about depictions of child abuse / harm to children... And neither series features that at any time.

[Marsh.]

'Abusers will get off on this stuff'

That's like saying "Pedos will get off on children on TV, so let's not put any kids on TV at all".

Fear mongering sh*t from out of touch elite.

[Beso]

Animal and physical abuse are available every time you step out of your front door... It doesn't mean you have to do it.

Though to be fair, I will agree that the more recent FarCry games have been a bit heavy on the animal hunting.

However, this thread is specifically about depictions of child abuse / harm to children... And neither series features that at any time.



Good, because there is no place in vg for that.

[Tom4784]

None yet, this seems to be the ground breaker... as I said it is the trailer the USP for the game isn't it?

And as I said earlier there are many topics I don't have a lot of knowledge about insofar as direct experience of, and I'm sure you don't have experience in the issues I have experience in, that doesn't mean I would ever deny your right to have an opinion .... that would be repressive.

If you think the USP of Detroit: Become Human is Domestic Abuse then you have clearly either not watched the trailer in question or you haven't understood it and have opted for moral outrage instead.

The USP of the trailer and the game in general is that the story can unfold in a number of ways depending on your actions and choices. If you have watched the trailer you certainly will see that it neither normalises or glamourises Domestic Abuse.

Who is denying your opinion? You made a statement saying that ''Modern' video games are about the normalisation of violence and/ or abuse' but that is simply not true at all. Your entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to point out the ignorant parts of it.

[Livia]

I reckon most people can tell fact from fiction from an early age. And those who can't will be tipped over the edge by something eventually... video game... novel... film... even the Bible. There's some twisted sh1t in that, don't see people calling for it to be banned.

[Jamie89]

I reckon most people can tell fact from fiction from an early age. And those who can't will be tipped over the edge by something eventually... video game... novel... film... even the Bible. There's some twisted sh1t in that, don't see people calling for it to be banned.This. Honestly there's worse stuff on the news and that's reality, if anything will desensitise people to violence it's what's happening around them, not fictional characters on a screen. Whether the characters are acted, or controlled by a player, we're all able to tell reality from fiction.

[Tom4784]

I reckon most people can tell fact from fiction from an early age. And those who can't will be tipped over the edge by something eventually... video game... novel... film... even the Bible. There's some twisted sh1t in that, don't see people calling for it to be banned.

I agree with this.

Blaming triggers is always foolish. Anything, everything and nothing can act as a trigger for someone with the capacity for violence.

[bots]

well, lets look at the violence in cartoons rammed down kids throats before they can even talk

[Kizzy]

well, lets look at the violence in cartoons rammed down kids throats before they can even talk

Violence in cartoons was banned.

[Kizzy]

If you think the USP of Detroit: Become Human is Domestic Abuse then you have clearly either not watched the trailer in question or you haven't understood it and have opted for moral outrage instead.

The USP of the trailer and the game in general is that the story can unfold in a number of ways depending on your actions and choices. If you have watched the trailer you certainly will see that it neither normalises or glamourises Domestic Abuse.

Who is denying your opinion? You made a statement saying that ''Modern' video games are about the normalisation of violence and/ or abuse' but that is simply not true at all. Your entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to point out the ignorant parts of it.

I have watched the trailer so why are you accusing me of ignorance?
I classed it as the USP as it is the focus of said trailer, the part of the game everyone gets to make a judgement on pre release.

I was not the first to use the term 'modern' to describe such interactive games in the thread, If you read back I didn't suggest it normalised abuse but suggested that that was a potential effect of the game.

Without any evidence it is impossible to say whether it is true or not therefore you dismissing my views as I 'misunderstood' or moral outrage is rather reactionary, denigrating my opinion is ignorant in itself, why is there no room for discussion on the possibility of desensitisation... it's not a wholly unheard of concept in gaming is it?

[Beso]

The question that should be asked is why would you pay 50 quid or whatever to watch women and kids being battered?

[T*]

there are literally books worse than this
It isn’t 1997 and GTA didn’t just come out, why is people craving video game censorship still a thing? Especially nowadays where you literally will not be able to stop people from playing it, anyone with a damn brain can get around it but anyway
The only people that have a problem with this or video games in general are naive. It seems people always will always want a scapegoat to blame

[Toy Soldier]

The question that should be asked is why would you pay 50 quid or whatever to watch women and kids being battered?

It's a maybe 15 minute section of a probably 25+ hour long story. Though I think you probably know that and are just trying to make some sort of ham-fisted point.

[Tom4784]

I have watched the trailer so why are you accusing me of ignorance?
I classed it as the USP as it is the focus of said trailer, the part of the game everyone gets to make a judgement on pre release.

I was not the first to use the term 'modern' to describe such interactive games in the thread, If you read back I didn't suggest it normalised abuse but suggested that that was a potential effect of the game.

Without any evidence it is impossible to say whether it is true or not therefore you dismissing my views as I 'misunderstood' or moral outrage is rather reactionary, denigrating my opinion is ignorant in itself, why is there no room for discussion on the possibility of desensitisation... it's not a wholly unheard of concept in gaming is it?

You made an ignorant blanket statement on video games when you admittedly don't know much about video games so I called it out.

Again, the USP of the trailer is not the child abuse, they are not saying 'play this game, you get to witness child abuse!' They are saying that actions have consequences and your choices affect how the story plays out which is why they show the worst possible outcome first and how your actions can change what happens.

It won't have any more of an effect on 'normalising' abuse as any film or TV show has that's covered the subject. You do not play as the aggressor, the trailer shows that the father's actions are not okay and the whole point of that section is to try to help the child out of a toxic and abusive situation.

There's no evidence to say that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist but that doesn't mean it's a solid argument for saying that it's real. There's no real evidence, despite how hard the media want there to be, of a link between playing violent video games and the development of violent tendencies in players. There's not many people who don't already have the potential to abuse others who would play this game and think 'yeah! domestic abuse looks good to me! Let's try it!'

You may think your opinions are above criticism, Kizzy, but they are not. You made an ignorant statement and you got called out on it. You are entitled to your ignorance and I'm entitled to comment on it.

[Kizzy]

You made an ignorant blanket statement on video games when you admittedly don't know much about video games so I called it out.

Again, the USP of the trailer is not the child abuse, they are not saying 'play this game, you get to witness child abuse!' They are saying that consequences have actions and your choices affect how the story plays out which is why they show the worst possible outcome first and how your actions can change what happens.

It won't have any more of an effect on 'normalising' abuse as any film or TV show has that's covered the subject. You do not play as the aggressor, the trailer shows that the father's actions are not okay and the whole point of that section is to try to help the child out of a toxic and abusive situation.

There's no evidence to say that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist but that doesn't mean it's a solid argument for saying that it's real. There's no real evidence, despite how hard the media want there to be, of a link between playing violent video games and the development of violent tendencies in players. There's not many people who don't already have the potential to abuse others who would play this game and think 'yeah! domestic abuse looks good to me! Let's try it!'

You may think your opinions are above criticism, Kizzy, but they are not. You made an ignorant statement and you got called out on it. You are entitled to your ignorance and I'm entitled to comment on it.

Of course I don't think my opinions are above criticism but like TS you are taking the fact I don't have direct experience as a gamer to denigrate my opinion, as I said to him there are a myriad of things discussed on this forum that you personally don't have direct experience of I would never suggest you are unqualified to comment on them though.

I'm not suggesting that those playing would become abusers, that's where you have totally misinterpreted my point, my issue is that it would desensitise and normalise abuse so it no longer is has the power to shock, I'm not the only one to have these views I'm not the only person to voice them.
I'm not sure how I can be accused of ignorance and naivety when there is a body dedicated to the study and measure of such outcomes.


Repeated Play of Violent Video Games Creates Emotional Desensitization

In April 2016, "Repeated Play Reduces Video Games’ Ability to Elicit Guilt: Evidence from a Longitudinal Experiment," was published in the journal Media Psychology. This study was conducted by Andrew Grizzard of University of Buffalo along with co-authors Ron Tamborini and John L. Sherry of Michigan State University, and René Weber of the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201604/violent-video-games-can-trigger-emotional-desensitization

The findings provide the first experimental evidence that repeatedly playing the same violent game reduces emotional responses -- like guilt -- not only to the original game, but to other violent video games as well.

Yet why this is happening remains a mystery, according to Matthew Grizzard, assistant professor of communication and principal investigator of the study published in current issue of the journal Media Psychology, with co-authors Ron Tamborini and John L. Sherry of Michigan State University and René Weber of the University of California Santa Barbara.

"What's underlying this finding?" asks Grizzard. "Why do games lose their ability to elicit guilt, and why does this seemingly generalize to other, similar games?"

Grizzard, an expert in the psychological effects of media entertainment, has previously studied the ability of violent video games to elicit guilt. The current study builds upon that work.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160408163742.htm

[Tom4784]

Of course I don't think my opinions are above criticism but like TS you are taking the fact I don't have direct experience as a gamer to denigrate my opinion, as I said to him there are a myriad of things discussed on this forum that you personally don't have direct experience of I would never suggest you are unqualified to comment on them though.

I'm not suggesting that those playing would become abusers, that's where you have totally misinterpreted my point, my issue is that it would desensitise and normalise abuse so it no longer is has the power to shock, I'm not the only one to have these views I'm not the only person to voice them.
I'm not sure how I can be accused of ignorance and naivety when there is a body dedicated to the study and measure of such outcomes.


Repeated Play of Violent Video Games Creates Emotional Desensitization

In April 2016, "Repeated Play Reduces Video Games’ Ability to Elicit Guilt: Evidence from a Longitudinal Experiment," was published in the journal Media Psychology. This study was conducted by Andrew Grizzard of University of Buffalo along with co-authors Ron Tamborini and John L. Sherry of Michigan State University, and René Weber of the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201604/violent-video-games-can-trigger-emotional-desensitization

The findings provide the first experimental evidence that repeatedly playing the same violent game reduces emotional responses -- like guilt -- not only to the original game, but to other violent video games as well.

Yet why this is happening remains a mystery, according to Matthew Grizzard, assistant professor of communication and principal investigator of the study published in current issue of the journal Media Psychology, with co-authors Ron Tamborini and John L. Sherry of Michigan State University and René Weber of the University of California Santa Barbara.

"What's underlying this finding?" asks Grizzard. "Why do games lose their ability to elicit guilt, and why does this seemingly generalize to other, similar games?"

Grizzard, an expert in the psychological effects of media entertainment, has previously studied the ability of violent video games to elicit guilt. The current study builds upon that work.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160408163742.htm

There's plenty of things I don't know, when they come up I try to research them and share my opinion, I don't make blanket statements like this one.

'Modern' video games are about the normalisation of violence and/ or abuse, mocking those who highlight this as a issue reiterates my point.

You can try to spin it any way you want, it's not going to change my opinion that you made a statement based on nothing factual.

If you watch a sad film multiple times, will you still be emotionally affected by it as much as you were the first time you watched it? Does watching someone's loved one die in a film make it less affecting when someone you know dies? No, it doesn't. I don't blink at violence in video games because it's not real but you can be sure that I would be affected by witnessing such violence in real life.

Games aren't reflective of real life, someone's reactions to a game is not the same as it would be if they witnessed similar events it in reality.

[Toy Soldier]

Repeated Play of Violent Video Games Creates Emotional Desensitization

In April 2016, "Repeated Play Reduces Video Games’ Ability to Elicit Guilt: Evidence from a Longitudinal Experiment," was published in the journal Media Psychology. This study was conducted by Andrew Grizzard of University of Buffalo along with co-authors Ron Tamborini and John L. Sherry of Michigan State University, and René Weber of the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201604/violent-video-games-can-trigger-emotional-desensitization

The findings provide the first experimental evidence that repeatedly playing the same violent game reduces emotional responses -- like guilt -- not only to the original game, but to other violent video games as well.

Yet why this is happening remains a mystery, according to Matthew Grizzard, assistant professor of communication and principal investigator of the study published in current issue of the journal Media Psychology, with co-authors Ron Tamborini and John L. Sherry of Michigan State University and René Weber of the University of California Santa Barbara.

"What's underlying this finding?" asks Grizzard. "Why do games lose their ability to elicit guilt, and why does this seemingly generalize to other, similar games?"

Grizzard, an expert in the psychological effects of media entertainment, has previously studied the ability of violent video games to elicit guilt. The current study builds upon that work.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160408163742.htm


This study is utterly meaningless though; it says absolutely nothing at all about whether or not there is any impact on the experience of guilt / empathy in real life scenarios. Why would one feel guilt when committing an immoral or criminal act in a game? There is no real victim, no one is being harmed, it's a piece of code. Just like most people don't leave the cinema with trauma after seeing a "Scream" movie. I'm pretty sure they would be scarred for life if they walked into a cinema and someone was dragged to the front and decapitated with a knife. To use a more realistic example; no one walked out of "Black Hawk Down" with PTSD... because it isn't real and human beings are pretty good at knowing the difference.

In theory; the more or the longer you play video games, the more attuned you become to this fact? You know that no one is really hurt or dying, you know that if you reload a save that guy you just saw being killed is magically "alive" again, therefore, why WOULD anyone feel genuine guilt over video game actions? I'd be more worried if people DID feel guilty because that, to me, would suggest a troublesome disconnection from reality.

Case in point: I could drive around GTA running people down all day and I'd be nothing more than bored. Yet a couple of years ago, I *thought* I saw a cat being hit by a car (it turned out to be fine) and yet I swear the shock / upset of it messed me up for over a week.

Until someone does a study of gaming that shows playing games with criminal / violent content decreases sensitivity and guilt related to REAL WORLD violence and criminal activity... I'd take this with a massive pinch of salt. As things stand now, I think The News and modern politics does a much better job of desensitizing people.

[Scarlett.]

The question that should be asked is why would you pay 50 quid or whatever to watch women and kids being battered?

It's a story about an AIs gaining sentience, thats like saying why would someone watch the film AI to see a robot kid trying to kill another kid.

[Kizzy]

There's plenty of things I don't know, when they come up I try to research them and share my opinion, I don't make blanket statements like this one.




You can try to spin it any way you want, it's not going to change my opinion that you made a statement based on nothing factual.

If you watch a sad film multiple times, will you still be emotionally affected by it as much as you were the first time you watched it? Does watching someone's loved one die in a film make it less affecting when someone you know dies? No, it doesn't. I don't blink at violence in video games because it's not real but you can be sure that I would be affected by witnessing such violence in real life.

Games aren't reflective of real life, someone's reactions to a game is not the same as it would be if they witnessed similar events it in reality.

What do you call seeking out scientific theory on the topic if it's not research? :/

Thank you for you opinion, you have chosen to ignore the findings of the studies I posted then? That's fine you're entitled to draw your own conclusions....As am I.

[Toy Soldier]

Thank you for you opinion, you have chosen to ignore the findings of the studies I posted then?

The finding of the study was that the more one plays video games, the less they are affected emotionally by that video game or other similar video games. That's it. That was the entire scope of the study. It says absolutely nothing about the effect of video games on real-life violence or empathy.

Why? Because no study has EVER shown a link between video games and increased real-life violence, or reduced real-life empathy. There have been HUNDREDS that have tried to show this link and yet, there are none that have ever demonstrated it and - in fact - several studies have "accidentally" shown links between video gaming and reduced real-life violence.

Do you think you are the first person who has assumed this link and wanted to prove it? People have been making this claim for years. It's not under-researched, the world is not lacking for people trying to prove this entirely baseless "games make people bad!" hypothesis, and yet no one has managed to drop that "bomb shell" study, because the facts and the statistical results just do not back up the prejudiced assumption. :shrug:

[Tom4784]

What do you call seeking out scientific theory on the topic if it's not research? :/

Thank you for you opinion, you have chosen to ignore the findings of the studies I posted then? That's fine you're entitled to draw your own conclusions....As am I.

Like TS said though and like I've said, your findings don't really prove your point.

[T*]

Seems like some people care more about people potentially seeing some pixels than they do actually tackling the problem. Feels like faux concern.

[Beso]

Like TS said though and like I've said, your findings don't really prove your point.

But what is abuse///violence etc...like a kid playing a game gets angry at losing and throws the controller smashing the telly screen with it....is that the video game changing how this kid reacts, does that come under this studys findings?

[bots]

But what is abuse///violence etc...like a kid playing a game gets angry at losing and throws the controller smashing the telly screen with it....is that the video game changing how this kid reacts, does that come under this studys findings?

thats just the kid being a brat though, the video game isnt teaching him to thow his controller and smash the tv

[Tom4784]

People have been trying to prove a link between video games and violence for years to no avail.

[Kizzy]

Like TS said though and like I've said, your findings don't really prove your point.

Nor do they disprove them, it's simply a theory that is under review isn't it?

I'm not looking to propose my opinion as fact, all I'm wanting at the moment is the right to have one without being insulted.

[Kizzy]

The finding of the study was that the more one plays video games, the less they are affected emotionally by that video game or other similar video games. That's it. That was the entire scope of the study. It says absolutely nothing about the effect of video games on real-life violence or empathy.

Why? Because no study has EVER shown a link between video games and increased real-life violence, or reduced real-life empathy. There have been HUNDREDS that have tried to show this link and yet, there are none that have ever demonstrated it and - in fact - several studies have "accidentally" shown links between video gaming and reduced real-life violence.

Do you think you are the first person who has assumed this link and wanted to prove it? People have been making this claim for years. It's not under-researched, the world is not lacking for people trying to prove this entirely baseless "games make people bad!" hypothesis, and yet no one has managed to drop that "bomb shell" study, because the facts and the statistical results just do not back up the prejudiced assumption. :shrug:

I would be interested to see those.
I don't think I'm the first person to pose this theory no, what a strange question.

Could you tell me why you think the assumption is prejudiced... do you consider gamers a marginalised group?

[Toy Soldier]

I would be interested to see those.
I don't think I'm the first person to pose this theory no, what a strange question.

Could you tell me why you think the assumption is prejudiced... do you consider gamers a marginalised group?

Of course it's a form of prejudice; you aren't seeing statistics or figures that show an increase in certain behaviours associated with video games... You've heard "people say" that there is a link and then trying to find stats and figures to back up that opinion after its formed.

And no, at this point, I would say that gamers (people who video game to at least some degree) are actually fairly mainstream - however - 15 / 20 years ago gamers certainly WERE a marginalised - and occasionally mocked - group. And there was a period of time where the (unproven, and still unproven / debunked) claims about violence and video games were constant tabloid fodder. We seemed to have moved on from that in the last decade and even to be "getting there" in terms of gaming being considered as legitimate a form of adult cultural expression as film / music / television so yes... It's exceptionally frustrating when people - usually older people who had no experience of gaming then and have no more now - start hauling out those same old dusty arguments for another whirl.

If Esther wants to conduct a study and DEMONSTRATE to me that there are problematic psychological effects stemming from video games then I'm more than willing to examine those claims and think about what might be going on. While her evidence remains "because I just think it probably does..." it's nothing more than, in my eyes, an outdated and unfounded opinion.

[Kizzy]

Of course it's a form of prejudice; you aren't seeing statistics or figures that show an increase in certain behaviours associated with video games... You've heard "people say" that there is a link and then trying to find stats and figures to back up that opinion after its formed.

And no, at this point, I would say that gamers (people who video game to at least some degree) are actually fairly mainstream - however - 15 / 20 years ago gamers certainly WERE a marginalised - and occasionally mocked - group. And there was a period of time where the (unproven, and still unproven / debunked) claims about violence and video games were constant tabloid fodder. We seemed to have moved on from that in the last decade and even to be "getting there" in terms of gaming being considered as legitimate a form of adult cultural expression as film / music / television so yes... It's exceptionally frustrating when people - usually older people who had no experience of gaming then and have no more now - start hauling out those same old dusty arguments for another whirl.

If Esther wants to conduct a study and DEMONSTRATE to me that there are problematic psychological effects stemming from video games then I'm more than willing to examine those claims and think about what might be going on. While her evidence remains "because I just think it probably does..." it's nothing more than, in my eyes, an outdated and unfounded opinion.

More ageism from you then? nothing to substantiate your claims of reduced real life violence..

There is nothing that you've shown me that suggests it's on outdated and unfounded opinion except your opinion... You stood on your soapbox due to your young white male opinion that she is not entitled to one.
There isn't a topic on this forum you haven't had an input on, again, what gives your views credence on those?

[Beso]

thats just the kid being a brat though, the video game isnt teaching him to thow his controller and smash the tv

The game triggers the behaviour though.

[Toy Soldier]

More ageism from you then? nothing to substantiate your claims of reduced real life violence..

There is nothing that you've shown me that suggests it's on outdated and unfounded opinion except your opinion... You stood on your soapbox due to your young white male opinion that she is not entitled to one.
There isn't a topic on this forum you haven't had an input on, again, what gives your views credence on those?I don't really care if you believe that it reduces violence Kizzy - I'm on the fence on that one personally, I doubt it has an effect either way... because violent people are violent for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with video games.

As for the rest of it; the onus is not on me to "prove that games don't increase violence". That's not how this works and you know it. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, in this case, Esther and... Well... You.

[Marsh.]

The game triggers the behaviour though.

If someone has anger issues, there's many things that will trigger it.

The trigger isn't the problem, the anger issue is.

[Beso]

If someone has anger issues, there's many things that will trigger it.

The trigger isn't the problem, the anger issue is.

If they have anger issues!

What if the kid or adult hadnt shown any anger issues before hand? They then hurl a controller through the tv....bad day at school? Or the frustration at losing some pointless one on one.

[Marsh.]

If they have anger issues!

What if the kid or adult hadnt shown any anger issues before hand? They then hurl a controller through the tv....bad day at school? Or the frustration at losing some pointless one on one.
If they've never shown anger issues in the past you think a video game is going to create one out of thin air?

If they hurl a controller through the TV because they lost some pointless one on one then they have some issue with temper and violence anyway.

A perfectly normal person without those issues isn't going to over react so extremely and violently to a trivial game.

[Beso]

If they've never shown anger issues in the past you think a video game is going to create one out of thin air?

If they hurl a controller through the TV because they lost some pointless one on one then they have some issue with temper anyway.

A perfectly normal person without those issues isn't going to over react so extremely to a game.

I disagree, maybe ask all the parents replying about hearing clattering and banging and foul mouthed expletives from upstairs, if the kids had shown previous examples of this behaviour before playing the game...

Then if they say that they did, you may want to explain to them how you think their child is abnormal.:nono:

[Toy Soldier]

I disagree, maybe ask all the parents replying about hearing clattering and banging and foul mouthed expletives from upstairs, if the kids had shown previous examples of this behaviour before playing the game...

Then if they say that they did, you may want to explain to them how you think their child is abnormal.:nono:Their child has an anger issue. If they want to blame it on a PlayStation instead of actually addressing that problem, that's their own issue. And it'll be a much bigger issue later on.

Throwing solid objects around the room because you're losing a game IS abnormal, as in, most kids DON'T do that.

[Beso]

Their child has an anger issue. If they want to blame it on a PlayStation instead of actually addressing that problem, that's their own issue. And it'll be a much bigger issue later on.

Why does a child start having anger issues?

Abuse, fear. .gaming.......etc etc



A normal child could easily turn into an abusive little angry **** within 3 months of gaming with their mic turned on....it cant be denied games and gaming changes kids.

[Marsh.]

I disagree, maybe ask all the parents replying about hearing clattering and banging and foul mouthed expletives from upstairs, if the kids had shown previous examples of this behaviour before playing the game...

Why don't you ask them? Considering it's you who first made the ridiculous assertion that video games create temperamental and violent kids.

If a trivial game causes them to kick off, you can bet that even without a video game, something would cause them to kick off. Again, it's not the trigger to blame but the anger issue itself.


Then if they say that they did, you may want to explain to them how you think their child is abnormal.:nono:

:rolleyes:

Well, the vast majority of kids don't throw controllers at the TV.

[Marsh.]

A normal child could easily turn into an abusive little angry **** within 3 months of gaming with their mic turned on....it cant be denied games and gaming changes kids.

Could? Where is your source for this?

There's no evidence that this has happened.

I think maybe the lines are blurring between growing teenagers who are going through extreme hormonal changes and gaming. If they're not erupting because they lost a game, they'll erupt at something else.

If a fully adjusted adult is getting violent, then that says more about them as a person than the video game.

[Beso]

I dont need a source...it cant be denied.

[Marsh.]

I dont need a source...it cant be denied.

Yes, you're making quite a large claim. So, yes, you're going to need proof of it.

But you have none.

[Toy Soldier]

Why does a child start having anger issues?

Abuse, fear. .gaming.......etc etcFrustration and a feeling of powerlessness, usually. Most common reason is that it's a learned behaviour from an angry parent.

Gaming? No. The kids who are lobbing the controller because they've lost a round of CoD are the same kids who started kicking sh*t around the gym hall at school when they were out first in Dodgeball, or picked last for football. The activity that they're getting angry about it irrelevant: if someone is displaying disproportionate anger during ANY activity then they have an emotional issue and poor impulse control, problems that will eventually affect them in every area of life. Probably better to catch Little Jimmy's anger problem when he's playing Xbox with his brother to be honest - otherwise you're going to find out about it when his first girlfriend dumps him and he throws a temper tantrum about that with m children more real consequences.

[Marsh.]

On a separate, but not unrelated note I regularly become extremely frustrated with computers, laptops and phones that are slow beyond belief. Even if it's only lagging a couple of seconds.

Did the computer create my impatience? Did it heck.

[Beso]

As a sumsung tv repair man i also come into contact with frantic mothers explaining how the tv fell over leaving an impact from blunt object smash on the tv in the kids room.

[Toy Soldier]

I dont need a source...it cant be denied.It can and is being denied and claiming that you don't need a source would make you look almost unfathomably stupid... IF it wasn't so obvious that you're just fishing for a reaction :idc:.

[Marsh.]

As a sumsung tv repair man i also come into contact with frantic mothers explaining how the tv fell over leaving an impact from blunt object smash on the tv in the kids room.

But let's blame the black box on the floor rather than parent the child, eh?

Are these same mothers replacing the TV each time rather than addressing the clear issues with their children?

Also, I hope you get paid the going rate of a psychologist, given that I gather you carried out a full assessment of these countless kids.

[Beso]

But let's blame the black box on the floor rather than parent the child, eh?

Are these same mothers replacing the TV each time rather than addressing the clear issues with their children?

Also, I hope you get paid the going rate of a psychologist, given that I gather you carried out a full assessment of these countless kids.

You can only parent the child after the event has happened, what i am saying is that gaming can trigger a reaction like that in a kid that hasnt shown any signs of anger in the past so im not do sure why you are getting as arsey as ts is.

I take my side on this issue using real life experience which i think is the best way to go as gaming is such a big money spinner now that only an idiot would believe any studys in the matter.

[AnnieK]

Some children are prone to frustration. My son is a case in point. He gets terribly frustrated with lego....at the moment that frustration manifests as tears as he is only 7. I am a fairly calm person so he doesn't get his frustration from me. He doesn't have any gaming consoles yet (although I'm tight because everyone in his class has at least 1 apparently) so his frustrations stems from somewhere else. Most children grow out of it I think

[Kizzy]

The finding of the study was that the more one plays video games, the less they are affected emotionally by that video game or other similar video games. That's it. That was the entire scope of the study. It says absolutely nothing about the effect of video games on real-life violence or empathy.

Why? Because no study has EVER shown a link between video games and increased real-life violence, or reduced real-life empathy. There have been HUNDREDS that have tried to show this link and yet, there are none that have ever demonstrated it and - in fact - several studies have "accidentally" shown links between video gaming and reduced real-life violence.

Do you think you are the first person who has assumed this link and wanted to prove it? People have been making this claim for years. It's not under-researched, the world is not lacking for people trying to prove this entirely baseless "games make people bad!" hypothesis, and yet no one has managed to drop that "bomb shell" study, because the facts and the statistical results just do not back up the prejudiced assumption. :shrug:

I don't really care if you believe that it reduces violence Kizzy - I'm on the fence on that one personally, I doubt it has an effect either way... because violent people are violent for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with video games.

As for the rest of it; the onus is not on me to "prove that games don't increase violence". That's not how this works and you know it. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, in this case, Esther and... Well... You.

:conf:

I provided links that back up my theory... you rubbished them.
That said there is no concrete evidence either way all I'm asking for is not to be insulted for putting foward a view... :/

[Marsh.]

You can only parent the child after the event has happened, what i am saying is that gaming can trigger a reaction like that in a kid that hasnt shown any signs of anger in the past so im not do sure why you are getting as arsey as ts is.

I'm not getting arsey.

On the topic, emphasis on the word "trigger".
A wife who forgets to buy something from the shop can trigger her abusive husband to give her a smack. Is she the cause and reason for his violent temper? Or is she just an outlet for issues he already has?

The same applies here. If they're not throwing gaming consoles around in frustration at a game they lost, they're screaming their head off with road rage in a car or throwing the spanner across the shed when trying to fix their bike.

Triggers come in many forms, but are not the cause of someone's personality traits.


I take my side on this issue using real life experience which i think is the best way to go as gaming is such a big money spinner now that only an idiot would believe any studys in the matter.

Well... we're all only using our experiences. That's all we can do.

What I will say is, meeting mothers who need new TV's due to kids throwing consoles is not a valid argument to back up the point you were making. That's not a source or evidence, it's simply an anecdote.

[Beso]

Some children are prone to frustration. My son is a case in point. He gets terribly frustrated with lego....at the moment that frustration manifests as tears as he is only 7. I am a fairly calm person so he doesn't get his frustration from me. He doesn't have any gaming consoles yet (although I'm tight because everyone in his class has at least 1 apparently) so his frustrations stems from somewhere else. Most children grow out of it I think

Hi annie.

Would it be fair to say most kids grow out of lego so the frustrations go away?

If so, if that child was then given a games console, the childs frustrations would increase rather than stay the same due to the amounts of adreniline the childs body can produce as it ages? And can it increase further as the games they can access are designed to produce more adreniline rushes?

[AnnieK]

Hi annie.

Would it be fair to say most kids grow out of lego so the frustrations go away?

If so, if that child was then given a games console, the childs frustrations would increase rather than stay the same due to the amounts of adreniline the childs body can produce as it ages? And can it increase further as the games they can access are designed to produce more adreniline rushes?

Hey Parm

I honestly don't know about that....I think my son's frustration stems from being fairly intelligent but his motor skills are still developing so whilst he knows what he wants to do and how things should work his coordination skills are still developing. I've not let him have a console as I prefer him to play out and play with toys while he's still young enough to do that and has far too much energy to sit still and play a game. my stepson is a gamer and isn't affected by the games he plays but he is very laid back. He can lose hours playing though.

[Beso]

Hey Parm

I honestly don't know about that....I think my son's frustration stems from being fairly intelligent but his motor skills are still developing so whilst he knows what he wants to do and how things should work his coordination skills are still developing. I've not let him have a console as I prefer him to play out and play with toys while he's still young enough to do that and has far too much energy to sit still and play a game. my stepson is a gamer and isn't affected by the games he plays but he is very laid back. He can lose hours playing though.

Perhaps marsh knows the answer?


Sound like a contented life. May i ask what games the oldest plays?

[AnnieK]

Perhaps marsh knows the answer?


Sound like a contented life. May i ask what games the oldest plays?

All the usual ones teens play (he's 16) but I don't know what they are lol. There is a lot of shooting and thats when I lose interest. Although he doesnt want CoD WW2 as hes a bit done with COD. He plays a lot of betas on the PS.

[Beso]

.

[Toy Soldier]

You can only parent the child after the event has happened, what i am saying is that gaming can trigger a reaction like that in a kid that hasnt shown any signs of anger in the past so im not do sure why you are getting as arsey as ts is.

And what I'm saying is, if a kid has an anger / frustration response like that triggered by something as simple as playing a game, it's probably better that it IS triggered by playing a game / lobbing a controller, so that they can get help early with their anger and impulse control problems... Because something is going to trigger it eventually, and rather a smashed TV than a glass smashed in someone's face at the pub, or a fist smashed in a girlfriend or wife's face for pissing him off. No?

[RichardG]

i was slicing monsters into pieces with a chainsaw when i was eleven years old on gears of war. i am now suffering from a severe addiction to korean boy bands. keep violent video games away from your kids, people! you don't want your son to end up like me!

[Marsh.]

Perhaps marsh knows the answer?

Less of the snide remarks please.

It's almost as though you can't stand someone challenging your posts.

[Tom4784]

Nor do they disprove them, it's simply a theory that is under review isn't it?

I'm not looking to propose my opinion as fact, all I'm wanting at the moment is the right to have one without being insulted.

Again, I refer to my Loch Ness monster argument.

I've not insulted you so drop the victim act and accept the fact that people can have their opinions on YOUR opinions because that's how discussions works.

You made a absolute statement that is ultimately unfounded despite many studies since the early 90's to try to determine whether games can make people more violent. Science has not been able to find a link in that long, it's safe to say that it does not exist.

You can make your statements and I (and anyone else) are perfectly entitled to tell you that you are wrong and point out why.

[Tom4784]

Let's be real here, Parm does not believe a word he is saying and what he has said has already been disproven by years of research by psychiatrists and scientists that understand the human condition and the causes and effects of emotional issues far better than anyone here.

If all those studies couldn't find proof that games make people more prone to violent acts or anger that they didn't already have the potential for then it doesn't exist.

[Kizzy]

Again, I refer to my Loch Ness monster argument.

I've not insulted you so drop the victim act and accept the fact that people can have their opinions on YOUR opinions because that's how discussions works.

You made a absolute statement that it ultimately unfounded despite many studies since the early 90's to try to determine whether games can make people more violent. Science has not been able to find a link in that long, it's safe to say that it does not exist.

You can make your statements and I (and anyone else) are perfectly entitled to tell you that you are wrong and point out why.

So I refer to actual scientific study and you to an analogy involving the Loch Ness monster?... ok.

I haven't stated at all that games make people violent.... you're wrong there,I suggested they normalise violence to an extent where it may be possible to become desensitised TO violence.

I had an opinion on the topic, it'd disingenuous of you to suggest I haven't watched the trailer or if I did I mustn't have understood it, I found that insulting. It's not for you to say how I find your responses .

I don't accept your 'right ' to tell me my opinions are wrong, and as I have stated many times now the accusation of being ignorant or inexperienced on any given topic is not a reason to denigrate anyones opinion.

It may be that a longitudinal study is required the measure the childhood to adulthood effects...who knows?

I don't care one iota whether you feel my opinion is wrong, bur have the respect to acknowledge I am entitled to feel how I choose on this or any topic.

[Beso]

Less of the snide remarks please.

It's almost as though you can't stand someone challenging your posts.

Hey, that was my attempt at including you in my mini interlude with anniek....


Laters haters.:wavey:

[Marsh.]

Hey, that was my attempt at including you in my mini interlude with anniek....


Laters haters.:wavey:

No it was your attempt at a dig because you have nothing to say in response to the last post I made to you.

But instead of leaving the conversation gracefully you had to leave a passive aggressive remark.

2 points to Hufflepuff I guess. :shrug:

[Tom4784]

So I refer to actual scientific study and you to an analogy involving the Loch Ness monster?... ok.

I haven't stated at all that games make people violent.... you're wrong there,I suggested they normalise violence to an extent where it may be possible to become desensitised TO violence.

I had an opinion on the topic, it'd disingenuous of you to suggest I haven't watched the trailer or if I did I mustn't have understood it, I found that insulting. It's not for you to say how I find your responses .

I don't accept your 'right ' to tell me my opinions are wrong, and as I have stated many times now the accusation of being ignorant or inexperienced on any given topic is not a reason to denigrate anyones opinion.

It may be that a longitudinal study is required the measure the childhood to adulthood effects...who knows?

I don't care one iota whether you feel my opinion is wrong, bur have the respect to acknowledge I am entitled to feel how I choose on this or any topic.

As we've already said, the study you linked to had a fatal flaw that you haven't really responded to. Sure, if people play enough games they become desensitised to violence WITHIN games but that doesn't mean they become desensitised to REAL violence or become more prone to committing it either.

Like I said in the examples before, if you watch a sad film enough times, it won't affect you the way it did when you first watched it, it doesn't mean that you won't be emotionally affected if you were to suffer a similar emotional event in real life as the characters in the said film.

It's been over twenty years since these kinds of studies have taken place and that's probably not counting the studies that would have happened in the 80's and such when Mary Whitehouse got up on a soapbox and wanted to ban whatever upset her. If there was any real proof, it would have been discovered by now.

Don't try to make out people are insulting you because you are losing the argument, you are reaching with these accusations and it's obvious to everyone.

It IS my right to tell you you are wrong because that's my ****ing opinion. I don't care if you can't accept that, it doesn't change the fact that I think you're wrong and all you are doing with your accusations is exactly what you are accusing me of doing.

[Marsh.]

That kind of argument doesn't hold water because we can all become desensitised to things due to the media.

It no longer shocks me, for example, when you hear of another needless mass killing in America.

However, does that mean where I to witness such an atrocity I would actually be desensitised to the violence and murder unfolding in front of me.

It's laughable to compare the clicking of a button on a control pad as something happens to an image on a screen and real people doing real things. It seems most kids see that more than grown adults do.

[Beso]

No it was your attempt at a dig because you have nothing to say in response to the last post I made to you.

But instead of leaving the conversation gracefully you had to leave a passive aggressive remark.

2 points to Hufflepuff I guess. :shrug:

In your head maybe...sorry marsh but i found annieks post more helpfull in understanding the matter so quoted her instead of you again as it wasnt going anywhere..i did ask if you may know to include you..but i dont care anymore..you have shown your hatred for me...so you, dezzy and ts can continue coming into thread after thread simply to belittle and ignore others opinions and thoughts as though they are simple or unworthy all you want...some of the reading on tibb atm is hard to read and its mostly coming from the mentioned members atm.


I shall leave now as i will be the one sitting staring at the you are banned screen...take your hate elsewhere though, i dont need it.:nono:

[Marsh.]

In your head maybe...sorry marsh but i found annieks post more helpfull in understanding the matter so quoted her instead of you

Yet felt the need to bring my name up. Your defence has more leaks than a sponge. :wavey:

[Marsh.]

I shall leave now as i will be the one sitting staring at the you are banned screen...take your hate elsewhere though, i dont need it.:nono:

I hope you don't resort to this childish nonsense when people disagree with you in real life. It won't get you anywhere.

[Beso]

Yet felt the need to bring my name up. Your defence has more leaks than a sponge. :wavey:

Cause i was sidelined by anniek you idiot but was still wanting to carry on our duscussion..jesus christ..**** me off.

[Marsh.]

sorry marsh but i found annieks post more helpfull in understanding the matter so quoted her instead of you again as it wasnt going anywhere

but was still wanting to carry on our duscussion

It's best for you to understand your own intentions before posting as you're now contradicting yourself.

But I'm the "idiot". Clearly.

[Beso]

It's best for you to understand your own intentions before posting as you're now contradicting yourself.

But I'm the "idiot". Clearly.

Discussions take all twists and turns..our bit wasnt going anywhere, so i thought you might want in on what annie said...you may be paranoid?

[Kizzy]

As we've already said, the study you linked to had a fatal flaw that you haven't really responded to. Sure, if people play enough games they become desensitised to violence WITHIN games but that doesn't mean they become desensitised to REAL violence or become more prone to committing it either.

Like I said in the examples before, if you watch a sad film enough times, it won't affect you the way it did when you first watched it, it doesn't mean that you won't be emotionally affected if you were to suffer a similar emotional event in real life as the characters in the said film.

It's been over twenty years since these kinds of studies have taken place and that's probably not counting the studies that would have happened in the 80's and such when Mary Whitehouse got up on a soapbox and wanted to ban whatever upset her. If there was any real proof, it would have been discovered by now.

Don't try to make out people are insulting you because you are losing the argument, you are reaching with these accusations and it's obvious to everyone.

It IS my right to tell you you are wrong because that's my ****ing opinion. I don't care if you can't accept that, it doesn't change the fact that I think you're wrong and all you are doing with your accusations is exactly what you are accusing me of doing.

And this theory is evidence based...Where is it then?

Are you suggesting we should take evidence from the 80s to debunk my theory, what was in the study donkey kong?... Modern games are a tad more realistic, and as such they affect people more, like these the characters have depth... personality, character they are relatable on an emotional level.... Why is it so hard to reason that they could affect how we think or feel, especially if playing as a child? Games have age appropriate content, why if they can't affect us?

I'm not losing the argument, my argument hasn't changed.. it's exactly the same, you've completely misinterpreted my comments to suggest I was stating games made people violent... I never said that.

I'm not saying you are wrong in your opinion as I've stated earlier whatever you opinions are you are welcome to them I'm not going to attempt to suggest you're wrong...Though quite why you feel you can so rudely slight my opinion I don't know :/

I get it you think 'm wrong... Let it be known I don't care you think that... have the grace to let me revel in my wrongness should I so wish!

[Marsh.]

Discussions take all twists and turns..our bit wasnt going anywhere, so i thought you might want in on what annie said...you may be paranoid?

Our discussion wasn't going anywhere but you apparently wanted to "continue" it. Ok.

Yeah, all the swearing and tantrum throwing is my paranoia.

Maybe you spend too much time checking the ban list to stare at my name.

Have a lovely evening.

[Brillopad]

Again, I refer to my Loch Ness monster argument.

I've not insulted you so drop the victim act and accept the fact that people can have their opinions on YOUR opinions because that's how discussions works.

You made a absolute statement that is ultimately unfounded despite many studies since the early 90's to try to determine whether games can make people more violent. Science has not been able to find a link in that long, it's safe to say that it does not exist.

You can make your statements and I (and anyone else) are perfectly entitled to tell you that you are wrong and point out why.

You always insult and then always play the victim by claiming others are playing the victim.

You take absolutely no responsibility for your own actions and always try and turn it around on to the people you constantly insult.

You are on a public website - you must either think everyone is blind or so stupid that a few words from you stating everyone else is playing the victim card will get you off the hook. You are not kidding anyone, only yourself.

[Tom4784]

You always insult and then always play the victim by claiming others are playing the victim.

You take absolutely no responsibility for your own actions and always try and turn it around on to the people you constantly insult.

You are on a public website - you must either think everyone is blind or so stupid that a few words from you stating everyone else is playing the victim card will get you off the hook. You are not kidding anyone, only yourself.

So you have nothing of interest to add to the topic, okay.

[Tom4784]

And this theory is evidence based...Where is it then?

Are you suggesting we should take evidence from the 80s to debunk my theory, what was in the study donkey kong?... Modern games are a tad more realistic, and as such they affect people more, like these the characters have depth... personality, character they are relatable on an emotional level.... Why is it so hard to reason that they could affect how we think or feel, especially if playing as a child? Games have age appropriate content, why if they can't affect us?

I'm not losing the argument, my argument hasn't changed.. it's exactly the same, you've completely misinterpreted my comments to suggest I was stating games made people violent... I never said that.

I'm not saying you are wrong in your opinion as I've stated earlier whatever you opinions are you are welcome to them I'm not going to attempt to suggest you're wrong...Though quite why you feel you can so rudely slight my opinion I don't know :/

I get it you think 'm wrong... Let it be known I don't care you think that... have the grace to let me revel in my wrongness should I so wish!

It's based on all the studies that have not been able to provide a link between violence in video games and violence in real life and it's just common sense really.

I see you misunderstood my point about the 80's, try reading a post a few more times before responding to make sure you understand. The reason why I brought up the 80's because there was people with the exact same thoughts towards 'video nasties' that believed they could desensitise children to violence or make them more violent in turn. No evidence backed them up then and no evidence backs up this crusade against video games now. Not being affected by violence that's not real does not mean that you won't be affected by actual violence.

Games are age restricted for the same reasons that TV shows and films are, that should be common sense. The BBFC does not classify games differently to films, the same standards still remain. Games, like films and TV shows can affect us on an emotional level, there's a number of games that will make you weep like you've just watched tearjerker, games are more effective at making us feel fear than horror films since you can't look away but all these feelings don't translate to real life. You don't go through life having emotional breakdowns over the fact that Mufasa died in The Lion King. The emotions a person feels whilst watching a film or playing a game remains tied to that.

No, you keep making out that I'm saying you aren't entitled to your opinion, you are and I'm entitled to dissect that opinion however you please like you can to mine.

I have never been restricted from playing or watching whatever films or games I want to watch. Watching and playing violent films and video games from a young age has never affected me because I knew it was not real and I could differentiate between what's acceptable in a game and what's acceptable in reality. Again, not being affected by simulated violence is not the same as not being affected by actual violence.

[Kizzy]

It's based on all the studies that have not been able to provide a link between violence in video games and violence in real life and it's just common sense really.

I see you misunderstood my point about the 80's, try reading a post a few more times before responding to make sure you understand. The reason why I brought up the 80's because there was people with the exact same thoughts towards 'video nasties' that believed they could desensitise children to violence or make them more violent in turn. No evidence backed them up then and no evidence backs up this crusade against video games now. Not being affected by violence that's not real does not mean that you won't be affected by actual violence.

Games are age restricted for the same reasons that TV shows and films are, that should be common sense. The BBFC does not classify games differently to films, the same standards still remain. Games, like films and TV shows can affect us on an emotional level, there's a number of games that will make you weep like you've just watched tearjerker, games are more effective at making us feel fear than horror films since you can't look away but all these feelings don't translate to real life. You don't go through life having emotional breakdowns over the fact that Mufasa died in The Lion King. The emotions a person feels whilst watching a film or playing a game remains tied to that.

No, you keep making out that I'm saying you aren't entitled to your opinion, you are and I'm entitled to dissect that opinion however you please like you can to mine.

I have never been restricted from playing or watching whatever films or games I want to watch. Watching and playing violent films and video games from a young age has never affected me because I knew it was not real and I could differentiate between what's acceptable in a game and what's acceptable in reality. Again, not being affected by simulated violence is not the same as not being affected by actual violence.

You can't excuse your lack of evidence as 'it's just common sense' :/

Again you're alluding to the link between violence in games and real life violence ... for the third time that was not, and is not my issue, instead of mocking me for your misunderstanding make sure you are aware of what my point is in relation to the topic.

I would say the parts in bold reinforce my argument more than yours too, for the reasons I stated earlier, there will be factors that could influence psychological impact the game quality for certain that won't have been an issue in the 80s. The age of the gamer is another factor, as with films there's always going to be younger people playing 18 games, we can't be certain they won't have been affected.

You can dissect my opinion if you like, you're not in a position to say it's wrong however as I'm not stating it as fact, all you have to counter is your opinion which also is not fact.

[Toy Soldier]

The thing is though... They do have age ratings, just like movies, and they have them for a reason. If the question you're asking is; "Is mature content harmful to young developing minds?" then the answer is "probably, yes" but that's largely irrelevant isn't it? The fact that people under 18 access mature content is NOT a reason for mature content to cease to exist.

Also, that said, I would imagine that mature content is more harmful to an 18 year old who has no context for it than for a 15 year old who has received good parental guidance in understanding adult themes.

But again that's really a totally separate discussion.

[Tom4784]

You can't excuse your lack of evidence as 'it's just common sense' :/

Again you're alluding to the link between violence in games and real life violence ... for the third time that was not, and is not my issue, instead of mocking me for your misunderstanding make sure you are aware of what my point is in relation to the topic.

I would say the parts in bold reinforce my argument more than yours too, for the reasons I stated earlier, there will be factors that could influence psychological impact the game quality for certain that won't have been an issue in the 80s. The age of the gamer is another factor, as with films there's always going to be younger people playing 18 games, we can't be certain they won't have been affected.

You can dissect my opinion if you like, you're not in a position to say it's wrong however as I'm not stating it as fact, all you have to counter is your opinion which also is not fact.

Why do you keep ignoring the majority of my posts and making out that my only argument is common sense? Also I know exactly what your argument is, I've commented on it enough just for you to keep ignoring it and focusing on bits you can misrepresent.

I haven't got a lack of evidence, I am the ****ing evidence, years of research that has yet to prove that games can have a detrimental effect on people's real life empathy or reactions to violence IS my evidence too. You are literally clinging to one study that stated an obvious fact, people become desensitised to VIRTUAL violence when they see a lot of it but no study has been able to prove there's a similar desensitivity to actual violence because of exposure to similated violence. I've explained why it's the case for films as well multiple times but you chose to ignore it since you can't argue against it.

Violent video games are not a new fangled thing, they have been around for over twenty years, if they have a negative effect on children we would have seen results or proof of that but we haven't.

Well you DID state an opinion like it was a fact.

'Modern' video games are about the normalisation of violence and/ or abuse, mocking those who highlight this as a issue reiterates my point.

I've never stated my opinions like they are facts obviously because I've repeated my mantra on opinions repeatedly in this thread, keep up Kizzy.

[Brillopad]

Why do you keep ignoring the majority of my posts and making out that my only argument is common sense? Also I know exactly what your argument is, I've commented on it enough just for you to keep ignoring it and focusing on bits you can misrepresent.

I haven't got a lack of evidence, I am the ****ing evidence, years of research that has yet to prove that games can have a detrimental effect on people's real life empathy or reactions to violence IS my evidence too. You are literally clinging to one study that stated an obvious fact, people become desensitised to VIRTUAL violence when they see a lot of it but no study has been able to prove there's a similar desensitivity to actual violence because of exposure to similated violence. I've explained why it's the case for films as well multiple times but you chose to ignore it since you can't argue against it.

Violent video games are not a new fangled thing, they have been around for over twenty years, if they have a negative effect on children we would have seen results or proof of that but we haven't.

Well you DID state an opinion like it was a fact.



I've never stated my opinions like they are facts obviously because I've repeated my mantra on opinions repeatedly in this thread, keep up Kizzy.

Not a very wise decision to present yourself and your constant aggressive posts as evidence of non-aggression. :joker::joker::joker: I think if anything you simply prove the case against not the case for. :rolleyes:

[Kizzy]

Why do you keep ignoring the majority of my posts and making out that my only argument is common sense? Also I know exactly what your argument is, I've commented on it enough just for you to keep ignoring it and focusing on bits you can misrepresent.

I haven't got a lack of evidence, I am the ****ing evidence, years of research that has yet to prove that games can have a detrimental effect on people's real life empathy or reactions to violence IS my evidence too. You are literally clinging to one study that stated an obvious fact, people become desensitised to VIRTUAL violence when they see a lot of it but no study has been able to prove there's a similar desensitivity to actual violence because of exposure to similated violence. I've explained why it's the case for films as well multiple times but you chose to ignore it since you can't argue against it.

Violent video games are not a new fangled thing, they have been around for over twenty years, if they have a negative effect on children we would have seen results or proof of that but we haven't.

Well you DID state an opinion like it was a fact.



I've never stated my opinions like they are facts obviously because I've repeated my mantra on opinions repeatedly in this thread, keep up Kizzy.

I'm bored of you now to be honest, you you can't ****ing have a study of one ****ing person for ****s sake!

For clarification I feel games now have the capacity to cause desensitisation and normalise violence... if you don't agree let it be said I just don't give a flying ****, whatever your opinion is I don't give a rats arse! I did not state my opinion as fact... ****ing fact!

[Tom4784]

I'm bored of you now to be honest, you you can't ****ing have a study of one ****ing person for ****s sake!

For clarification I feel games now have the capacity to cause desensitisation and normalise violence... if you don't agree let it be said I just don't give a flying ****, whatever your opinion is I don't give a rats arse! I did not state my opinion as fact... ****ing fact!

If you read my posts properly, you would know I was referring to the fact that, like so many other people, I could watch and play what I wanted from an early age and that it didn't normalise real life violence for me since, again like so many other people, I can tell the difference between reality and a video game. That's my argument for why I am proof that video games doesn't normalise violence because it certainly did not in my case or in the cases of many others on this site who had similar unrestricted access to mature content as a child.

As I've said a thousand times (which you will ignore like you have this entire thread, your study that you keep mentioning holds no merit on the discussion of violence desensitivity in real life since it only proved what should have been obvious to everyone, that playing violent video games will desensitise you to VIRTUAL violence. That study has no impact on the discussion of video games normalising violence or desensitising people to ACTUAL violence.

I will continue to comment on yours' and other opinions just like you are free to do so to me because that's my ****ing right to do and you've just got to accept that.

[Kizzy]

If you read my posts properly, you would know I was referring to the fact that, like so many other people, I could watch and play what I wanted from an early age and that it didn't normalise real life violence for me since, again like so many other people, I can tell the difference between reality and a video game. That's my argument for why I am proof that video games doesn't normalise violence because it certainly did not in my case or in the cases of many others on this site who had similar unrestricted access to mature content as a child.

As I've said a thousand times (which you will ignore like you have this entire thread, your study that you keep mentioning holds no merit on the discussion of violence desensitivity in real life since it only proved what should have been obvious to everyone, that playing violent video games will desensitise you to VIRTUAL violence. That study has no impact on the discussion of video games normalising violence or desensitising people to ACTUAL violence.

I will continue to comment on yours' and other opinions just like you are free to do so to me because that's my ****ing right to do and you've just got to accept that.

Go for it ... Fill your boots.

My opinions remains the same.
https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-16-2015/ZuHE6x.gif

[Toy Soldier]

Go for it ... Fill your boots.

My opinions remains the same.
https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-16-2015/ZuHE6x.gifLuckily, your opinion also remains uninformed and irrelevant.

[Kazanne]

Well this convo is interesting,of course kids are influenced by games and media , whoever says they are not just needs to convince themselves of that because they play these games , and they really want to keep playing them, my lads start imitating Ninja Turtles ,Power Rangers etc,so if they are not influenced why would they want to re-enact it,plus the times I have had to cover my ears when my nephew is playing a game upstairs and he is not an angry young man , but as soon as he gets that control in his hands he is a different lad, I am not saying the games make kids violent but they certainly don't make them calm and peaceful either ,many a time I have had to calm my boys down after playing things they have seen on TV or seen someone playing, so to say it doesn't affect them is stupid and probably said by people who dont even have kids.

[Toy Soldier]

Well this convo is interesting,of course kids are influenced by games and media , whoever says they are not just needs to convince themselves of that because they play these games , and they really want to keep playing them, my lads start imitating Ninja Turtles ,Power Rangers etc,so if they are not influenced why would they want to re-enact it,plus the times I have had to cover my ears when my nephew is playing a game upstairs and he is not an angry young man , but as soon as he gets that control in his hands he is a different lad, I am not saying the games make kids violent but they certainly don't make them calm and peaceful either ,many a time I have had to calm my boys down after playing things they have seen on TV or seen someone playing, so to say it doesn't affect them is stupid and probably said by people who dont even have kids.Like I said, adult rated games featuring violence may well affect kids but so what? They're not supposed to be playing them, and that's not what this thread is even about. It's about a game with adult themes, designed for and marketed at adults, and whether or not certain content should be "banned" because it might reduce empathy. Whether or not someone's son / nephew / neighbours cousins TV repair man's clients kid gets mad playing Call of Duty (which incidentally, is not rated for children in the first place) is totally irrelevant.

It also has nothing to do with gaming and everything to do with the fact that it's competitive multiplayer gaming. It's not the games that are making these kids fume and throw things at walls - its the fact that they have LOST at a game AGAINST ANOTHER HUMAN.

If you want me to believe that those same kids are perfectly calm when they lose a game of football up the park, or lose a board game against their family... I'll have to ask you to pull the other one. They're lobbing their footie boots across the changing room and lobbing the monopoly board off the table just the same as the game pad.

[Toy Soldier]

There's also a big difference between being culturally influenced by media and becoming physically violent :/

[Beso]

http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/neuromyth-or-neurofact/violent-video-games-make-children-more-violent/

[Brillopad]

Well this convo is interesting,of course kids are influenced by games and media , whoever says they are not just needs to convince themselves of that because they play these games , and they really want to keep playing them, my lads start imitating Ninja Turtles ,Power Rangers etc,so if they are not influenced why would they want to re-enact it,plus the times I have had to cover my ears when my nephew is playing a game upstairs and he is not an angry young man , but as soon as he gets that control in his hands he is a different lad, I am not saying the games make kids violent but they certainly don't make them calm and peaceful either ,many a time I have had to calm my boys down after playing things they have seen on TV or seen someone playing, so to say it doesn't affect them is stupid and probably said by people who dont even have kids.

Completely agree Kaz - I have had the same experience with my son. I also agree that a lot of this is about justification from people who spend a lot of time playing the games themselvess, some of whom allow their underage kids to play them too.

It’s obvious that violence in a lot of the games does have a substantial effect on some and increase aggression in many otherwise quite passive people - so what do they do to those already aggressive by nature?

[Toy Soldier]

http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/neuromyth-or-neurofact/violent-video-games-make-children-more-violent/1) Again, what does the premise of this thread have to do with children playing games that are not age appropriate?

2) Your own link has actually advocated FOR the game used in the example;

"The good news is that pro-social games, where the main aim is to help someone else, have a positive effect on behaviour[xiv]*to the same extent that violent games have a negative effect."


The aim in the game that Esther has an issue with, and that this thread is about, is to HELP the victim of violence. Therefore - according to your link - this will have a positive effect on the player. Right?

[Marsh.]

Except kids know the difference between playing power rangers and play fighting and shooting someone dead. [emoji23]

[Toy Soldier]

Completely agree Kaz - I have had the same experience with my son. I also agree that a lot of this is about justification from people who spend a lot of time playing the games themselvess, some of whom allow their underage kids to play them too.

Hmm, and you both have had these experiences with your sons and both are keen to suggest that games lead to aggression. Might we equally, perhaps, wonder if this might be about attempting to justify the aggressive behavior of your own offspring by "blaming games"? I guess no parent wants to believe that their little boy is just aggressive and easily frustrated by nature :shrug:.

The thing is though, the aggression you're noticing is almost certainly whilst playing competitive online games like Call of Duty or FIFA. And yes - many teenage boys DO get... Overenthusiastic... When engaging in competitive activities. The only real difference is that they're in the house playing games so you can see and hear them, rather than out at the park playing football and swearing / scrapping with their friends. It's "normal teen behaviour".

[Cherie]

Like I said, adult rated games featuring violence may well affect kids but so what? They're not supposed to be playing them, and that's not what this thread is even about. It's about a game with adult themes, designed for and marketed at adults, and whether or not certain content should be "banned" because it might reduce empathy. Whether or not someone's son / nephew / neighbours cousins TV repair man's clients kid gets mad playing Call of Duty (which incidentally, is not rated for children in the first place) is totally irrelevant.

It also has nothing to do with gaming and everything to do with the fact that it's competitive multiplayer gaming. It's not the games that are making these kids fume and throw things at walls - its the fact that they have LOST at a game AGAINST ANOTHER HUMAN.

If you want me to believe that those same kids are perfectly calm when they lose a game of football up the park, or lose a board game against their family... I'll have to ask you to pull the other one. They're lobbing their footie boots across the changing room and lobbing the monopoly board off the table just the same as the game pad.

Reminds me of when my son had a friend around and we were all playing monopoly and the friend said his Mom had lobbed the monopoly board :joker: and she is quite a mild mannered woman

[Toy Soldier]

Reminds me of when my son had a friend around and we were all playing monopoly and the friend said his Mom had lobbed the monopoly board :joker: and she is quite a mild mannered womanSome people just don't take losing well at all. My daughter doesn't get angry but she does get really upset about losing, to the extent that she just won't willingly engage in anything competitive. I guess if you don't compete, you can't lose? Haha. But it's basically anything... She can't play board games or video games, and even if she's with a friend and they're like "race ya to the next lamp post!" she's just straight up like "NOPE I'm not racing" and actually slows down :joker:.

Even things where there's no skill involved like deciding something with a coin toss. Just won't do it :shrug:.

[Tom4784]

Yeah, I do think it's a problem with competitive attitudes rather than with the games themselves. When you fail in single player games, it's no one's fault but your own but when people lose in competitive games against other people they can place the blame at someone else's door.

That's not exclusive to video games, nor is it a problem that video games have created.

[Kizzy]

Luckily, your opinion also remains uninformed and irrelevant.

Irrelevant... in what context?

I can handle being uninformed I never professed to being a gaming aficionado... But irrel?... Why not go the extra mile and throw a gurl bai in there? :joker:

[Toy Soldier]

Irrelevant... in what context?

I can handle being uninformed I never professed to being a gaming aficionado... But irrel?... Why not go the extra mile and throw a gurl bai in there? :joker:Well... Irrelevant to gamers, game publishers, retailers and to regulators responsible for giving age ratings to games content / allowing them to go to market. So, I guess in this context... Irrelevant to anyone who actually matters? :shrug:

[Amy Jade]

I grew up watching horror movies and playing violent video games, my older step brother had me watching things like Evil Dead, Scream and Halloween and playing Grand Theft Auto and Resident Evil with him.

I am now studying to be a nurse and I go and vaulenteer at an animal sanctuary when I can as well as owning my own well looked after dog and horse. I could never hurt a person or animal intentionally and I grew up watching the weirdest most violent ****.

If you are capeable of harming others then you just are, a movie or video game doesn't create killers.

[Toy Soldier]

]Yeah, I do think it's a problem with competitive attitudes rather than with the games themselves. When you fail in single player games, it's no one's fault but your own but when people lose in competitive games against other people they can place the blame at someone else's door.

That's not exclusive to video games, nor is it a problem that video games have created.There's also a lot of taunting / goading / name calling that goes on over the headsets... That's where a lot of the frustration comes from :shrug:. But it's literally the exact same crap that was going on in the playground when people were playing sports and other playground games. Except actual fights started then. But no one was getting up in arms about it.

[Kizzy]

Well... Irrelevant to gamers, game publishers, retailers and to regulators responsible for giving age ratings to games content / allowing them to go to market. So, I guess in this context... Irrelevant to anyone who actually matters? :shrug:

Just when I think you couldn't get any higher on that soapbox... you surpass yourself.

Anyone can have an opinion on anything

Just because your arrogance prevents you from accepting that people who are not gamers can and do have opinions on games it does not follow that they are 'irrelevant' in any debate.
AsI stated previously I could trawl this forum and find 101 topics that you have not and could not have any experience in of of and yet you participate as is your right ... Why then am I not afforded the same courtesy?

You actually appear affronted that someone over 40 and female has the audacity to comment at all on the subject.

[Kazanne]

Except kids know the difference between playing power rangers and play fighting and shooting someone dead. [emoji23]

And at what age marsh do you think they know the difference ?

[Marsh.]

And at what age marsh do you think they know the difference ?
Well very young kids have no real concept of most things and by the time they're old enough to understand they know the difference. Sometimes more than adults.

Kids aren't as stupid as they are usually thought of imo.

[Kazanne]

Well very young kids have no real concept of most things and by the time they're old enough to understand they know the difference. Sometimes more than adults.

Kids aren't as stupid as they are usually thought of imo.

The reason I asked you that marsh is when those two 10 year olds killed James Bulger,there were some that said they didn't know what they were doing they were only 10,do you believe that train of thought? as it was said they had got ideas from the movie Chucky,so were they influenced or not ? and were they old enough to understand,I have my own views but would like yours. By the way no one likes gaming more than me,especially the Tombraider games,but even I have been known to throw the control and call her a stupid cow,LOL,so they do get in your head.

[Amy Jade]

Pretty sure it was proved Jon Venables had never seen Child's Play. Those two are just sick in the head, you could have put them infront of My Little Pony and they would have still been evil.

[Toy Soldier]

The reason I asked you that marsh is when those two 10 year olds killed James Bulger,there were some that said they didn't know what they were doing they were only 10,do you believe that train of thought? as it was said they had got ideas from the movie Chucky,so were they influenced or not ? and were they old enough to understand,I have my own views but would like yours. By the way no one likes gaming more than me,especially the Tombraider games,but even I have been known to throw the control and call her a stupid cow,LOL,so they do get in your head.

I know you're asking Marsh but my opinion on this is that it's utter BS that they didn't know what they were doing was wrong. I know that I have a just turned 8 year old who doesn't care at all about violence on screen but would never dream of hurting another child - much less a child younger than her - and I'm fairly confident that all of her friends the same age are exact the same. Of course they know the difference and the idea that they did it because of watching "Chucky" is just as ridiculous as the notion that a violent game can be the cause of a child or teenager turning to real violence. When it comes to Mrs right down to the very basics of that case... From what I've read I believe that Thompson quite probably had (has) some sort of psychopathy or at least extreme sociopathy and that was essentially what lead to that horrific crime. Most people seem to think of Venables as the ringleader but if you look into their behaviour immediately after the crime and accounts of how they were in the years afterwards, I highly doubt that is the case.

But yes, anyway, no it wasn't a film that caused them to do what they did, it all scapegoating, the same as with gaming. Healthy, well adjusted people know the difference, know it early (I would say aged 5 or 6, max) and can't be turned to violence by stories and games.

[Toy Soldier]

Pretty sure it was proved Jon Venables had never seen Child's Play. Those two are just sick in the head, you could have put them infront of My Little Pony and they would have still been evil.Well... To be fair... I've listened in on my youngest with her My Little Pony toys and I have concluded that PinkiePie is in fact an avatar of Satan himself. She seems to believe so, anyway. The sheer disdain she has for that specific pony :umm2:...

[Kazanne]

I know you're asking Marsh but my opinion on this is that it's utter BS that they didn't know what they were doing was wrong. I know that I have a just turned 8 year old who doesn't care at all about violence on screen but would never dream of hurting another child - much less a child younger than her - and I'm fairly confident that all of her friends the same age are exact the same. Of course they know the difference and the idea that they did it because of watching "Chucky" is just as ridiculous as the notion that a violent game can be the cause of a child or teenager turning to real violence. When it comes to Mrs right down to the very basics of that case... From what I've read I believe that Thompson quite probably had (has) some sort of psychopathy or at least extreme sociopathy and that was essentially what lead to that horrific crime. Most people seem to think of Venables as the ringleader but if you look into their behaviour immediately after the crime and accounts of how they were in the years afterwards, I highly doubt that is the case.

But yes, anyway, no it wasn't a film that caused them to do what they did, it all scapegoating, the same as with gaming. Healthy, well adjusted people know the difference, know it early (I would say aged 5 or 6, max) and can't be turned to violence by stories and games.


Oh I agree ,of course they knew what they were doing,I know the Bulger family via my mom,and some about this case I know that the video WAS brought up in court, one of the judges deemed there was a connection,I cant say too much,but there were some similarities in the case so yes I think media can put things in peoples heads but most dont act upon it but to those who are prone to violence I don't think they can be helpful,but you have to blame parents also for letting kids play adult games,I dont think they make people violent in themselves,but with the graphics being as they are today they are very life like and some are a bit over the top for violence imo.

[Tom4784]

The killers of Jamie Bulger would have committed the act regardless of whether or not they played a game or watched a film. They had the potential for killing long before they apparently watched Chucky.

If gaming truly could make someone violent then we would have seen a noticeable pattern emerge by now given that it's been over twenty years since violent video games came to prominence but not such pattern exists. Games (and anything else in the world) can act as a trigger for a disturbed individual but they don't create them. Blaming a trigger is pointless.

[DemolitionRed]

There is no blanket, 'yes it can affect a child' or 'no it can't affect a child'.

We know, for example, that a child who regularly witnesses violence within their family can become desensitized to violence. Its the same for adults. Morbid facination can start quite innocently but when a person keeps looking for violent content on places like YouTube, its usually because they are searching for an emotion but the more they watch, the less they feel because they are desensitizing themselves.

We know children learn from observing the things around them. We also know that the make believe is an important part of childhood development. If a child plays with a doll and pretends to be a mother they are using their imagination to be that mother. Therefore, that Childs reality whilst playing that game is that of a mother and not a child. Although most children start to move away from imaginary play fairly early, children with ADHD and children who lack emotional maturity can carry on playing alternative reality games up to and around the age of 10. For these children, computer games can be a real asset, so long as we monitor what the content is. No 10 year old should be playing computer games above the rating for that age because its content has been deemed not suitable.
A child who does play adult content games may be absolutely fine but that could depend on their environment, the context, the guidance they receive from their parents and it could depend on the emotional maturity of that child.

[Beso]

1) Again, what does the premise of this thread have to do with children playing games that are not age appropriate?

2) Your own link has actually advocated FOR the game used in the example;

"The good news is that pro-social games, where the main aim is to help someone else, have a positive effect on behaviour[xiv]*to the same extent that violent games have a negative effect."


The aim in the game that Esther has an issue with, and that this thread is about, is to HELP the victim of violence. Therefore - according to your link - this will have a positive effect on the player. Right?
Oh piss off, there is a lot more in that link than the factt that that game, aids kids because they can correct the wrong.......especially when the game in question is not available to kids....twisty misty

[Scarlett.]

1) Again, what does the premise of this thread have to do with children playing games that are not age appropriate?

2) Your own link has actually advocated FOR the game used in the example;

"The good news is that pro-social games, where the main aim is to help someone else, have a positive effect on behaviour[xiv]*to the same extent that violent games have a negative effect."


The aim in the game that Esther has an issue with, and that this thread is about, is to HELP the victim of violence. Therefore - according to your link - this will have a positive effect on the player. Right?

I think some people in the thread don't realise that not helping the victim of violence in the game would contribute to getting a less than satisfactory ending to a game. The game wants you to make the right choices so all the good characters make it out of the situation in a good state.

[Kazanne]

The killers of Jamie Bulger would have committed the act regardless of whether or not they played a game or watched a film. They had the potential for killing long before they apparently watched Chucky.

If gaming truly could make someone violent then we would have seen a noticeable pattern emerge by now given that it's been over twenty years since violent video games came to prominence but not such pattern exists. Games (and anything else in the world) can act as a trigger for a disturbed individual but they don't create them. Blaming a trigger is pointless.

I agree to a certain extent,what I am saying is they CAN have an influence on certain kids, it's not black and white,there are shades of grey here,didn't the killers in Columbine copy something they had seen ? of course normal people can play them with no effect but not everyone is 'normal' I think that is what it alludes to,the similarities in the Bulger case was the train track,the blue paint and the batteries.but I agree in the fact they would have killed video or not in this case.

[Withano]

Not to state the obvious, but you would have to be mentally unwell to be influenced into murder by anyone or anything, that goes for children and adults.

Several millions have watched Chuckie and played GTA. Its mathematically impossible to claim that this is the reason for any murder. I think people just feel more comfortable when theres something to physically blame.

[Cherie]

I do believe it's nature over nurture if someone turns out to be evil, that said I don't thing members can point to themselves as evidence of children not being influenced, as it is a very individual thing

[Kizzy]

I' going to use that word.... trigger.

With psychopathy there has to be an event or series of events that turns on this part of the brain within the psychopath.

Could these games do it?

[Vicky.]

I' going to use that word.... trigger.

With psychopathy there has to be an event or series of events that turns on this part of the brain within the psychopath.

Could these games do it?

Does there? I wouldn't have thought so really. I would say its always there. Some chose to act on it (maybe for superficial reasons..most common seems to be rejection by a romantic partner) and some don't. I genuinely cannot imagine how playing a violent videogame could be a 'trigger'

I am apparently a sociopath. Which means (according to the internet and searches I have done since having this revealed to me) I could have psychopathic tendencies. But I watch endless gory films and such and have never felt the urge to hurt someone badly. I know I could hurt someone badly and feel no guilt (I have hurt people 'not badly' and felt no guilt, I have done some very bad things and not felt guilt too, I am very manipulative also when I want to be and never feel bad for that) as I have thought about it a lot and how I would actually take it and have come to the conclusion that I could actually kill someone and not care at all. All I would care about is the possibility of getting caught and going to prison. But still, as I said I watch a ridiculous amount of gory films, I watch real beheadings and such on the net, and still never this 'trigger' has happened to me. Hmm. Though it does concern me a lot that I have thought enough into it to come to the conclusion that I could kill without regret.

[Vicky.]

I tell a lie actually. I once did feel an urge to murder, a serious one, not a 'I will bloody kill them' passing thought. When it was revealed my little brother had been abused by an 18 year old when I was 16. I genuinely was going to kill him and I did not give a **** at all that his family would be grieving and such. The only thing that managed to stop me was my parents saying about me going to prison. I think that scared them a bit, that no 'emotional' reasoning with me worked, and only bringing up a possible consequence for myself helped. And even then I went into how I would effectively 'hide' what I had done and maybe try to frame someone else if I could not make it out to be an accident.

I am very good at 'faking' guilt for stuff. I learnt that as a young child. I did know deep down that I was nothing like my siblings or parents.

It feels odd to finally get this out properly..as the only person I can speak about properly about this is my psychiatrist. And I only ended up seeing her because a gambing counselor once mentioned to me that from what I said to her, it sounded like I was a sociopath :S It worried me a lot as I was of the opinion that sociopaths were naturally really horrible people (also I did not meet the 'requirements' completely, as I do have emotions when my children/family are involved, so not totally emotionless), but it turns out thats not necessarily the case at all. And that a lot of people like me can effectively act 'normal' pretty easily.

Though I do admit, I am not normal at all and when I want to, I can manipulate most situations into my chosen conclusion with literally no thought at all to how it will affect anyone else. As an example I have purposely split up long term relationships as it was convenient for me to do so. And did not care at all when I saw how sad both parties were because of my actions. That kind of thing. I genuinely do not care about the consequences for anyone other than myself. I can pretend to. But I don't. I cannot 'empathize'. Again, I have tried, but I can't. I can pretend to pretty convincingly though.

I know this is making me out to be absolutely horrendous. Not even sure why I have gone so much into this on here as its not really relevant at all. But yeah, I don't believe a videogame could be a trigger.

[Tom4784]

I agree to a certain extent,what I am saying is they CAN have an influence on certain kids, it's not black and white,there are shades of grey here,didn't the killers in Columbine copy something they had seen ? of course normal people can play them with no effect but not everyone is 'normal' I think that is what it alludes to,the similarities in the Bulger case was the train track,the blue paint and the batteries.but I agree in the fact they would have killed video or not in this case.

That's a trigger though, you can't blame a trigger since anything and nothing can be a trigger for violence when it comes to violent people. They could have copied something they saw on TV or read in a book but that doesn't mean we scapegoat books or TV.

The Columbine killers were disturbed individuals that would have done what they did regardless of if they played Doom or not. It wasn't a game that put them on that path.

I remember reading a while back that psychopaths and the like often feel like the world around them isn't real and that's why they do what they do without a conscience because to them, they aren't hurting something that's alive, they're killing something that isn't real. I think any form of media could be dangerous to an individual like that because they can't distinguish between reality and their delusions. That's where things become dangerous, as long as a person understands the difference between reality and fiction then I don't think a game can affect a normal person in a lasting way (obviously like a film, games can be emotional or promote fear but that's VERY short term, just like a film would).

It's more important to look at why killers kill and to learn what the signs and events were that led to them killing then it is to scapegoat their actions. It's why I get quite passionate on this subject. The Helen Lovejoys of the world that think games are a corrupting force are just providing excuses for killers, it doesn't help anyone to blame films, games or music for someone's actions.

[Vicky.]

I would say there is probably a lot of truth in that old scream quote, personally

'Don't you blame the movies. Movies don't create psychos. Movies make psychos more creative!'

[Withano]

I' going to use that word.... trigger.

With psychopathy there has to be an event or series of events that turns on this part of the brain within the psychopath.

Could these games do it?

Well.. anything hypothetically could do it. Tripping on a twig could hypothetically do it, but lets not ban oxygen and water. Theres a long line of issues that would need to occur before anyone attempts to murder.

[bots]

there will never be metrics connecting video games to behavior. They do however have an age recommendation associated with them which in itself indicates unsuitability for an impressionable audience. That is an acknowledgement that they do influence people

[Kizzy]

Does there? I wouldn't have thought so really. I would say its always there. Some chose to act on it (maybe for superficial reasons..most common seems to be rejection by a romantic partner) and some don't. I genuinely cannot imagine how playing a violent videogame could be a 'trigger'

I am apparently a sociopath. Which means (according to the internet and searches I have done since having this revealed to me) I could have psychopathic tendencies. But I watch endless gory films and such and have never felt the urge to hurt someone badly. I know I could hurt someone badly and feel no guilt (I have hurt people 'not badly' and felt no guilt, I have done some very bad things and not felt guilt too, I am very manipulative also when I want to be and never feel bad for that) as I have thought about it a lot and how I would actually take it and have come to the conclusion that I could actually kill someone and not care at all. All I would care about is the possibility of getting caught and going to prison. But still, as I said I watch a ridiculous amount of gory films, I watch real beheadings and such on the net, and still never this 'trigger' has happened to me. Hmm. Though it does concern me a lot that I have thought enough into it to come to the conclusion that I could kill without regret.

This neuroscientist was shocked to discover he was... as he had no idea, he could only assume that due to to his life experiences he hadn't been 'triggered'.
Unless you do kill someone then I guess being a psychopath is nothing to be ashamed of?

I can't watch beheadings or anything, gory films terrify me and yet faced with a real life situation involving serious injury doesn't phase me at all.
I identify with the manipulative and charismatic part I suppose.
The most telling being how I need to 'rest' after being around people.... it's just so draining.

If I'm being perfectly honest I wouldn't trust myself to act rationally and revenge for major slights was sweet, as I've joked before I don't know how my ex is still alive... he must have a cast iron stomach. That was for hitting my son, I remember it as clear as day it was like a switch, all the love I had for him vanished in an instant and I just wanted him dead. :hehe:

Too much mario cart 64 maybe? haha!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/03/how-i-discovered-i-have-the-brain-of-a-psychopath

[Kizzy]

I tell a lie actually. I once did feel an urge to murder, a serious one, not a 'I will bloody kill them' passing thought. When it was revealed my little brother had been abused by an 18 year old when I was 16. I genuinely was going to kill him and I did not give a **** at all that his family would be grieving and such. The only thing that managed to stop me was my parents saying about me going to prison. I think that scared them a bit, that no 'emotional' reasoning with me worked, and only bringing up a possible consequence for myself helped. And even then I went into how I would effectively 'hide' what I had done and maybe try to frame someone else if I could not make it out to be an accident.

I am very good at 'faking' guilt for stuff. I learnt that as a young child. I did know deep down that I was nothing like my siblings or parents.

It feels odd to finally get this out properly..as the only person I can speak about properly about this is my psychiatrist. And I only ended up seeing her because a gambing counselor once mentioned to me that from what I said to her, it sounded like I was a sociopath :S It worried me a lot as I was of the opinion that sociopaths were naturally really horrible people (also I did not meet the 'requirements' completely, as I do have emotions when my children/family are involved, so not totally emotionless), but it turns out thats not necessarily the case at all. And that a lot of people like me can effectively act 'normal' pretty easily.

Though I do admit, I am not normal at all and when I want to, I can manipulate most situations into my chosen conclusion with literally no thought at all to how it will affect anyone else. As an example I have purposely split up long term relationships as it was convenient for me to do so. And did not care at all when I saw how sad both parties were because of my actions. That kind of thing. I genuinely do not care about the consequences for anyone other than myself. I can pretend to. But I don't. I cannot 'empathize'. Again, I have tried, but I can't. I can pretend to pretty convincingly though.

I know this is making me out to be absolutely horrendous. Not even sure why I have gone so much into this on here as its not really relevant at all. But yeah, I don't believe a videogame could be a trigger.

It's good to get it out Vicky....

That'll be £250 please, see you next Sunday for our next session?

:joker:

[Vicky.]

This neuroscientist was shocked to discover he was... as he had no idea, he could only assume that due to to his life experiences he hadn't been 'triggered'.
Unless you do kill someone then I guess being a psychopath is nothing to be ashamed of?

I can't watch beheadings or anything, gory films terrify me and yet faced with a real life situation involving serious injury doesn't phase me at all.
I identify with the manipulative and charismatic part I suppose.
The most telling being how I need to 'rest' after being around people.... it's just so draining.

If I'm being perfectly honest I wouldn't trust myself to act rationally and revenge for major slights was sweet, as I've joked before I don't know how my ex is still alive... he must have a cast iron stomach. That was for hitting my son, I remember it as clear as day it was like a switch, all the love I had for him vanished in an instant and I just wanted him dead. :hehe:

Too much mario cart 64 maybe? haha!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/03/how-i-discovered-i-have-the-brain-of-a-psychopath
From that article I searched for this hare psychopathy checklist..as the wiki link didn't have the actual questions. I found this

http://uk.businessinsider.com/hare-psychopath-checklist-test-sociopath-2016-11/#1-do-you-have-excess-glibness-or-superficial-charm-1

And I score 17/20 on it

So thats scary.

So maybe psychopath instead of sociopath. Which is nice...

Only ones that don't apply to me are
Do you have a grandiose sense of self-worth? (though I do very often feel that I should have more than I have, even from not working for it...so maybe?)
Have you had many short-term "marital" relationships?
Do you have a "parasitic lifestyle"? (though this one does kind of apply to me at the moment due to illness. But when I am not ill its a no so I don't think its right to apply this one for sake of the test)

One of the comments on the guardian link is interesting to me 'I've often wondered if psychopathy could not be treated with MDMA (ecstasy), a drug renowned for massively increasing empathy.'. As my own experiences with MDMA made me feel like a complete different person, which is why I was so heavily into it as a teenager as it was so...alien to me.

[DemolitionRed]

Does there? I wouldn't have thought so really. I would say its always there. Some chose to act on it (maybe for superficial reasons..most common seems to be rejection by a romantic partner) and some don't. I genuinely cannot imagine how playing a violent videogame could be a 'trigger'

I am apparently a sociopath. Which means (according to the internet and searches I have done since having this revealed to me) I could have psychopathic tendencies. But I watch endless gory films and such and have never felt the urge to hurt someone badly. I know I could hurt someone badly and feel no guilt (I have hurt people 'not badly' and felt no guilt, I have done some very bad things and not felt guilt too, I am very manipulative also when I want to be and never feel bad for that) as I have thought about it a lot and how I would actually take it and have come to the conclusion that I could actually kill someone and not care at all. All I would care about is the possibility of getting caught and going to prison. But still, as I said I watch a ridiculous amount of gory films, I watch real beheadings and such on the net, and still never this 'trigger' has happened to me. Hmm. Though it does concern me a lot that I have thought enough into it to come to the conclusion that I could kill without regret.

I've got to go with what Kizzy says here. Its not always there. Whilst its true that sociopathy/psychopathy is usually predisposed to the gene pool, its not always the case. Frontal lobe injuries often cause the recovered person to show sociopathic traits that weren't previously there.

But back to being born with sociopathic genes. Modern thinking say it’s the environment that is often the catalyst that nurtures those genes. Therefore, a child born with a sociopathic genes, brought up in a healthy environment is less likely to exhibit traits as an adult but a child brought up in an abusive environment is more likely to go through the ripple effect that can lead to psychopathic behavior.

Its interesting what you say about your self diagnosis. There are a lot of people with sociopathic traits amongst us but don’t have enough traits to have a diagnosis and are therefore not sociopaths.

[Kizzy]

I was well under at 20, many of the things that referred to childhood kept me below 30 so maybe something happened in my early adult life that flipped me?
I can think of a few things... :/

[Vicky.]

Its not a self-diagnosis. It came first from, my counselor, then from my psychiatrist, who I only actually went to after thinking a lot about what my counselor said :laugh:

The rest just kind of fell into place after that. And I can now see how it all ties together.

[Vicky.]

I was well under at 20, many of the things that referred to childhood kept me below 30 so maybe something happened in my early adult life that flipped me?
I can think of a few things... :/

Yeah, I just answered the questions as they were posted. Realized afterwards it was meant to be done on a never/sometimes/always basis. And my total score that way is 35.

(Still put 0 for parasitic lifestyle though. As while technically it applies right now, its not by choice and I would change that tomorrow if I could)

[DemolitionRed]

Its not a self-diagnosis. It came first from, my counselor, then from my psychiatrist, who I only actually went to after thinking a lot about what my counselor said :laugh:

The rest just kind of fell into place after that. And I can now see how it all ties together.

What did your counselor call it?

[Vicky.]

What did your counselor call it?

She said I sounded like a sociopath. (her job was not to actually diagnose or anything, but to help me through my gambling issues, though I basically only went to her in the first place as I knew if it looked like I was getting some form of treatment, the court would go easier on me)
I asked why this was. And she went into quite a bit of detail about how I don't appear to feel guilt at all for what I did. In short I ripped off a bunch of people and the only bit that mattered to me was that I was caught and was going to be punished. When she had asked me how I felt about it all now and what I regret, I was honest and said the only part I regret is that I was caught. She said how would I think the people on the recieving end of my crime would feel and I said 'stupid' as they were obviously not intelligent enough to realize that it was all bogus. I still try to blame them in some way, and still do not feel guilty. Or even see them as 'real people' to be quite honest.

My shrink has gone into it all a fair bit more (obviously) and she has mentioned both Sociopathic Personality Disorder and Antisocial personality disorder. Reckons theres no actual treatment though :S And I have never done that test or anything before today. It seems to be just on observations from telling her about my life that she has decided this.

Noone besides my husband know about this. Except y'all now :laugh:

[Tom4784]

10/20.

Surprising, I always thought I had some tendencies but perhaps it's not as bad as I thought it was.

[Marsh.]

I' going to use that word.... trigger.

With psychopathy there has to be an event or series of events that turns on this part of the brain within the psychopath.

Could these games do it?
That's probably the issue here.

There's a world of difference between a trigger and a cause.

A trigger sets off something already wrong, and can come from a multitude of things. A cause is something different and suggests something like a video game can cause a mentally healthy person to change.

I believe they can trigger, like many things in life can trigger unwell people to do irrational and violent things. I don't believe they're a cause in any way shape or form.

Out of the millions upon millions of people who have watched Chuckie of all ages and backgrounds, 2 kids using it as inspiration for the despicable acts they'd have committed with or without it is no evidence that horror movies or video games cause these things.

[Kizzy]

That's probably the issue here.

There's a world of difference between a trigger and a cause.

A trigger sets off something already wrong, and can come from a multitude of things. A cause is something different and suggests something like a video game can cause a mentally healthy person to change.

I believe they can trigger, like many things in life can trigger unwell people to do irrational and violent things. I don't believe they're a cause in any way shape or form.

Out of the millions upon millions of people who have watched Chuckie of all ages and backgrounds, 2 kids using it as inspiration for the despicable acts they'd have committed with or without it is no evidence that horror movies or video games cause these things.

I did't put forward the chuckie analogy.

Could it not be a trigger for those who do have issues and a cause for those who don't?

[Vicky.]

I did't put forward the chuckie analogy.

Could it not be a trigger for those who do have issues and a cause for those who don't?

I genuinely do not believe that playing violent videogames can turn an otherwise normal person into a killer. I really don't. Is this what you mean by this?

[Marsh.]

I did't put forward the chuckie analogy.

Could it not be a trigger for those who do have issues and a cause for those who don't?
I never said you did. I used the point about triggers vs cause to add my thoughts to the threads conversation which included the Bulger case.

In answer to your question, no I don't think so. As I've never come across any such crimes committed by people without issues and I've never come across anyone nor have any studies highlighted an individual who became mentally unbalanced due to a video game, movie or other.

I agree with Vicky on the Scream quote.
Movies and games might give psychos ideas but they were a psycho beforehand. Bulger's killers were apparently influenced by Chucky, if that film didn't exist they'd have used other methods. Chucky didn't make them kill.

It's like the other point someone made about kids play fighting. Kids use their imaginations and play make believe anyway. So if they didn't have the idea from watching TV to play "Power Rangers" for example, they'd be messing about and playing something of their own creation.

The same goes for psychos IMO.

[Marsh.]

Also, remind me not to get on Vicky's bad side.

[Tom4784]

I did't put forward the chuckie analogy.

Could it not be a trigger for those who do have issues and a cause for those who don't?

No game, film, book, song, TV show etc can make someone a killer, they can (like all things) can TRIGGER violent behavior in violent individuals but they are never the cause of violent incidents.

Blaming video games for violent behavior is essentially vindicating violent people for their actions.

[Kizzy]

No game, film, book, song, TV show etc can make someone a killer, they can (like all things) can TRIGGER violent behavior in violent individuals but they are never the cause of violent incidents.

Blaming video games for violent behavior is essentially vindicating violent people for their actions.

Well we won't go into that whole cause and effect debate again :)

[Toy Soldier]

Well we won't go into that whole cause and effect debate again :)

It's not a debate though, a psychologically healthy individual can't be prompted to commit murder by an external source like a movie or game. It's just not even a realistic claim. An already disturbed individual might be "triggered by", or get specific ideas from, something like a game, movie or book but that's sort of a moot point... because the same could be said of myriad sources. They could be triggered by or get ideas from the 6 o'clock news, or something as simple as a word-of-mouth story. Should we ban news broadcasts and conversation?

In fact - if you care to have a look into some of the world's most notorious serial killers - there are a very large numbers who were inspired by other real-life killers more than anything else... so, by reading the news, basically. Mass shootings and things like that, especially, are often inspired by the infamy of previous mass-shooters, and the vast amount of media attention.

I maintain that there are far more disturbing and horrific stories in the real world / real news every single day than I have ever seen in any movie or video game.

Potential triggers of all sorts of things are absolutely everywhere, and you can't even fully identify each one until hindsight. Some people may be tempted to "ban everything!!" in an attempt to remove those triggers and keep people "safer" but not only would it be logically impossible - it would also be ineffective. If it's not one thing, it'll only be something else that no one had considered.

[Jamie89]

http://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk/neuromyth-or-neurofact/violent-video-games-make-children-more-violent/

It's an interesting read but it does note that there's no real evidence to link violent games to actual real life violence (it also implies that games like the one this thread is about could actually benefit children :laugh: )

The other thing in all of this is that noone is ever forced to play a violent game and they're not imposed onto us by game manufacturers, they exist because we want them to. There's something within us that makes us want to play them and enact fake/fictional violence, so are violent video games influencing us or are we influencing them? What's the real cause and effect in all of this? I sort of wonder what makes someone want to play one in the first place (I'm one of those people incase anyone thinks I'm trying to imply something) but it is a curious thing. I've enjoyed violence within games but I've never been a violent person in real life. Any link could just be that violent people may enjoy playing fictional violence and because of issues they already have, may relate them to real experiences, whereas non-violent people would play them without relating them to real experiences. But the cause of those violent peoples tendencies still wouldn't be the game itself.