Woah, a topic other than "Do you like achievements or not?" All right, stay with me here, 'cause I've got a lot to say.
1) How old were you when you started playing violent video games?Matt-4542
I was 11 when I first played Doom, Doom being the first ultra-violent game I played. I'd played Raptor: Call of the Shadows and TIE Fighter before that, but those weren't near as violent as Doom. Anyone remember when games used to be rated on a violence scale, of 1 to 4? It went like this:
- Level 1: Damage to realistic objects (I remember this one on combat flight sim games)
- Level 2: Humans killed (This one was on shooters that had no blood, like Dark Forces)
- Level 3: Killing with blood and gore (Doom)
- Level 4: Wanton and gratuitous violence (Haha! Those exact words were on Duke Nukem)
I don't know why they got rid of the violence scale. It seemed like it was a lot more informative to parents and other clueless parties than just "T" or "M."
2) How old are you now?Matt-4542
I'm 24.
3) Have you noticed more agressiveness after playing these video games?Matt-4542
No, not immediately after playing those games. I played almost every shooter that came out between '93 and 2001, then I joined the Army. I always joke that shooters made me crave a life of violence in the military.
In all reality, you'll see crap on anti-gaming websites claiming that the government uses Doom to "train" soldiers and Marines, in order to desensitize them to violence. (It's always Doom that the ultra-liberals/conservatives pick on, never Duke Nukem, Quake, Half-Life, et cetera. Apparently, Doom is all there is in the world of shooters.) Anyway, the USMC did try using a modified version of Doom to train fireteam (four guys) tactics in 1996. The emphasis was on team work, leadership, and small unit maneuvers. It was not designed to program Marines to love killing; there's many other, and more time-honored ways of doing that. Anyone who suggests that videogames desensitize people to violence probably has never witnessed any real violence. Violence on your TV/computer screen and real violence are completely different. Seeing Marcus Fenix cut somebody in half with a chainsaw does not get you ready to go see someone get cut in half with a machinegun. This is my opinion based on personal experience. From a larger and less anecdotal perspective, I would suggest that if videogames are so realistic in their depictions of violence, then we'd see hordes of gamers suffering from PTSD, like the guys coming back from Iraq.
4) What is your stance on this subject. Do you think that video games can instill violent behavior in people?Matt-4542
There's a key issue here between video games causing heightened aggressiveness and video games actually causing violent behavior. All kinds of things cause aggressiveness. Watching a football game heightens aggressiveness (of course, there's extreme liberal fruitcakes who want to ban football). So, I'm open to the idea that violent games might be a little more exciting than, say, Hello Kitty Island Adventure. As to violent games actually warping kids' fragile little minds and turning them into Ted Bundy...
In 2000, the (American) Federal Trade Commission was directed at the behest of Congress to investigate the entertainment industry and its marketing techniques, to include video game publishers. This inquiry was in response to the Columbine incident, as a follow-up to a 1993 investigation which resulted in the gaming industry's (still) current self-rating system. Although the investigation was directed primarily towards the marketing of video games to children, it also scrutinized the effects of video game violence. The FTC found that although some entertainment companies engaged in advertising that presented mature material to children (individuals under 17), it also found that a higher level of parental involvement would serve to regulate this exposure as much as an alteration in marketing practices. Regarding violence, the panel's words speak very clearly:
"Most researchers and investigators agree that exposure to media violence alone does not cause a child to commit a violent act, and that it is not the sole, or even necessarily the most important, factor contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes, and violence."
If video games were the root of all evil, like some whackos (Thompson/Clinton) think, then one would expect to see patterns of violent behavior amongst the game-playing demographics. Who plays videogames? Middle-income males. Who's responsible for most violent crime? I'll give you a clue; it isn't middle-income males. Violent games do not compel people to commit violent acts. To infer so is unscientific and illogical. Although host of special interest groups condemn violent video games as responsible for societal decay, global warming, and AIDS, research, both experimental and statistical, demonstrates that there is no rational basis for the notion that violent games create violent people.
5) What do you think of activists like Thompson and Clinton?Matt-4542
See above.
Log in to comment