demagogue on 12/3/2009 at 18:09
Nobody is saying real violence isn't awful, and the gov't should do all it can to stop it.
Half the problem with going after something like games is that not only are you spending resources on something with no real causal relationship to violence, but it means you are just spending that much less on things that do cause it. If he respects his son's memory, he should go after the serious culprits of this problem.
Rogue Keeper on 13/3/2009 at 08:15
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Or pirate their games. No game is worth 80 bucks.
Well that's why I said it would seriously harm the market.
Demagogue :
As for the violence in games and it's influence on people, there are several psychological studies. For example Psychological Science claims that violence does not directly make games more enjoyable ((
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2005/pr051130.cfm)), but also admits that "Existing research indicates that one of these risk factors may be a lower threshold for a media-violence-induced activation of aggressive behavior" and takes into account the fact (which is taken seriously in psychological community) that long time exposure of a child to media violence can raise his/her tolerance to real life agression.
(relevant study : (
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/pspi/pspi43.pdf) )
Motivations of violent acts are related to broader individual's environment, conditions of education, and specifics of individual psychology, but please, let's not lie to ourselves that violent content in the electronic media entertainment doesn't have ANY long term psychological impact on us. For example, my lesson is that violence is common in human society and you better learn to kill or you'll be killed.
I better don't want to know people who enjoy Rapelay...
DDL on 13/3/2009 at 09:26
Of course, the irony is that games that try NOT to trivialise violence are the ones most highly restricted.
Shoot a hundred mindless faceless goons? Fine.
Stub a cigar out in someone's eye while they beg you not to? Ooohh that's going too far.
The former game hardly even requires thought, whereas (personally) the latter would really make me think about my actions. The kind of person likely to play the latter and go "OMFG THIS IS KOOL. IMA GO DO IT TO A KID" is the kind of person fucked in the head enough to do it anyway, game or no game.
Koki on 13/3/2009 at 13:22
These crazy scientists! Next they'll tell us that fast-paced games cause adrenaline rush.
Rogue Keeper on 13/3/2009 at 13:30
You know, if I wasn't predestined to end like a nerd, I'd be one of them! :(
Koki on 13/3/2009 at 13:40
On the bright side, psychology is witchcraft.
Rogue Keeper on 13/3/2009 at 14:20
Then gaming is inquisition? :idea:
demagogue on 13/3/2009 at 18:09
Quote Posted by Rogue Keeper
please, let's not lie to ourselves that violent content in the electronic media entertainment doesn't have ANY long term psychological impact on us.
I don't doubt that it has a psychological impact and is often associated with violent behavior when it occurs.
I was actually making a pretty specific argument about Externality theory (trying to anyway), not about the psychology of game playing. So I wasn't really disagreeing with any claim you or those scientists just made (if I read them right).
Under externality theory, the gov't shouldn't be entitled to burden a market unless it can point to a real market failure like an externality, which is some social cost that isn't reflected in the price, so the market isn't properly dealing with that cost ... like a harm being caused by production to somebody other than the producer (environmental or health harm), or an unexpected risk after you buy, particularly to other people (it spotaneously explodes or something), anything that can't be taken into account when a person buys it (a la supply/demand). You hack the cost artificially into the market price, and then the market "understands" it and recalibrates itself, and if it's a real cost, then the market forces become part of the solution of dealing with it, not the problem (i.e., the developers either avoid violence-causing content to avoid the tax or absorb the tax/lower sales and "pay off" the harm they cause ... whichever route makes them more money. And when that choice is set up properly, society benefits, but only if...).
But to be counted as really having a "cost", the X really has to be a primary cause of it, the "but for the game it wouldn't happen" ... or its not really an externality anymore. Like it practically has to be the game itself doing the stabbing. If it's just an accessory ... lowering the threshhold, stoking violent thoughts over long exposures, all the things that really aren't so surprising ... those are real issues, but not an externality.
My only point is that punishing the market really isn't the right course of action to deal with the problem of violence. And externality theory is not going to support it (although apparently that kind of logic is what they think they are appealing to). Even if they put the social cost of violence into the game-market, the market is still not going to really properly "understand" and "deal with" its contribution through market forces, if you see what I mean. It's the wrong tool for the job. If you can't find the line between content that "causes" violence and content which "doesn't" (in just the same way you can find the chemical combination that causes explosions), then you aren't really coherently doing anything about the problem ... just arbitrarily fining a buisness for content you don't like for its own sake.
I just mean, the point I was making was really specific on that one point (games aren't a good "but for" cause of violence). I wasn't really trying to argue games have nothing to do with violent behavior at all. I'm sure there are connections, but that wouldn't change this point.
jay pettitt on 13/3/2009 at 23:00
That said, violence has become a whopping great big crutch that 'the industry' seems to be using as a replacement for ideas, originality and gameplay - so perhaps fining them every time they release a shooty shooty shoot shoot game isn't such a bad idea after all. Or maybe the should be made to perform an unpleasant forfeit or have a population of fleas introduced to their crotch areas or something.
I don't think violence in games is wrong per se, but the prevalence of them has gotta be worrying both from the stagnation of human capacity to be creative and fun and also from the point of view as representing violence as normal - that's kinda objectionable. Hollywood are a bunch of amoral dullards too (and while I probably agree with demagogue really - though I might suppose that there is likely to be a source of institutional bias if the onus is always for someone to demonstrate that violent games are harmful rather than the onus being on the publisher demonstrating to society that their games aren't harmful) I don't think those are virtuous characteristics. A pox on them.
june gloom on 14/3/2009 at 00:04
So you want to fight the lack of uncreativity by implementing what amounts to a censorship tax and setting a precedent that could be extended to other forms of media?
