Government review on the effects video game violence

[Mekon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7034179.stm

Dr Tanya Bryon - what the fvck does she know about research or video games. Boils my piss to see the gov go for a TV presenter (OK, she still does some clinical work) over scientists for a review that could lead to legislation.

DrJohnboyG, I suspect this will be fodder for your column when it's published.

[DucatiGary]

"If Pac-Man affected us as kids, then we'd all be running around darkened rooms, munching magic pills, listening to repetitive electronic music"

as stated by the head of PR for Atari USA in the eighties.



.. .. .. .. now look at the life of ravers . . . . . .

[Steve Evil]

Ravers? Have we gone back to the early nineties?

Wasn't quoted by the head of Atari anyway;

http://www.marcusbrigstocke.com/pacman.asp

Edited by Steve Evil on Tuesday 9th October 14:14

[Nuclearsquash]

this boils down to parental responsibility. All that is needed is re-education of the population what an 18/15/12 rating means and how it applies to a game. Then stick some big ass stickers on the front saying "This will up your kids!" or possibly something more palatable like "Contains scenes of Extreme Violence/and some mild peril". Job done, no need for investigations, and censorship.

[Steve Evil]

Exactly, banning manhunt 2 because it's sick and violent, yet letting Hostel 2 come out at the cinema is a bit stupid, better parental education and labelling is all that's necessary.

[scorp]

Steve Evil said:

Exactly, banning manhunt 2 because it's sick and violent, yet letting Hostel 2 come out at the cinema is a bit stupid, better parental education and labelling is all that's necessary.

There is an important difference though, video games are interactive; the player participates and often initiates violence. Although if your stupid enough to be influenced by either video games or movies, then really, you should be disqualified from access to any form of media.

[LukeBird]

scorp said:

Steve Evil said:

Exactly, banning manhunt 2 because it's sick and violent, yet letting Hostel 2 come out at the cinema is a bit stupid, better parental education and labelling is all that's necessary.

There is an important difference though, video games are interactive; the player participates and often initiates violence. Although if your stupid enough to be influenced by either video games or movies, then really, you should be disqualified from access to any form of media.

Sounds bloody fantastic, game shops are too bloody packed as it is....

[Nuclearsquash]

Just cos something is interactive doesn't mean you'll do it. Dhamer didnt have access to uber violent video games, his parents divorced and left him on his own. His own sense of isolation and loneliness led him to kill people and keep the bodies/bits of bodies. So perhaps we should ban divorce and make sure people have comapny at all times.

Essentially it comes down to responsibility, an adult can make up their mind if they want to watch/play something, and are normally sane enough to realise it's not real, and don't let it influence themselves. Children tend to blur reality/vurtuality a bit more easily, they need adults to say no you can't play/watch this. Adults not sane enough to differentiate are going to be a problem either way. I don't think Jack the Ripper had access to a PS2 and a copy of Manhunt or Saw.

[Steve Evil]

Yeah but it still comes down to how you should be given personal choice, the fact that there are a lot of parents out there who don't have a clue what computer games are and will buy Manhunt etc for their 12yr old child, but would never dream of letting them watch an 18 movie. They simply don't realise how dark some of these titles are.

As an adult, I don't see why the government should be allowed to ban these titles because of the daily-mailites out there.

As for having any effect on people, I can be one of the sickest and most twisted individuals out there within the confines of a game, I thought Postal 2 was hilarious, setting people on fire and then urinating all over their corpses. Outside of the realms of gaming though I'm one of the most placid people you'd meet and would avoid violence wherever possible.

[scorp]

Nuclearsquash said:

Just cos something is interactive doesn't mean you'll do it. Dhamer didnt have access to uber violent video games, his parents divorced and left him on his own. His own sense of isolation and loneliness led him to kill people and keep the bodies/bits of bodies. So perhaps we should ban divorce and make sure people have comapny at all times.

I was thinking that the act of interaction has a greater reinforcement/learning value than observation (in the case of movies). I imagine this will be an argument put forward.

[Nuclearsquash]

It wholly depends on the personality type, whether people respond to a kinesthetic approach to learning or a visual approach. Visual queues can be very powerful, but there has to be a lot of other "stuff" going on in someones life for them to descend to the depraved levels of dhamer and his ilk. It's a cop out on behalf of socety to blame an "easy" target like film/games/music. Some of the most disturbing stuff i've ever come across has been in the form of a book. Poppy Z Brite being one that was very uncomfortable. But this never gets mentioned, probably cos kids don't read. I remember buying IT when i was about 13, and reading it, that really preyed on my mind in places, but no one bats an eyelid cos reading is "Good".

Edited by Nuclearsquash on Tuesday 9th October 15:14

[scorp]

Nuclearsquash said:

Essentially it comes down to responsibility, an adult can make up their mind if they want to watch/play something, and are normally sane enough to realise it's not real, and don't let it influence themselves. Children tend to blur reality/vurtuality a bit more easily, they need adults to say no you can't play/watch this. Adults not sane enough to differentiate are going to be a problem either way. I don't think Jack the Ripper had access to a PS2 and a copy of Manhunt or Saw.

I smell a logical fallacy in your argument - Just because Jack the Ripper didn't have videogames doesn't mean there aren't other influences which contributed to his psychotic behaviour. Video games may well be proven to cause violent tendencies, but thats not to say, video games are solely to blame for violence and is the sole origin of all violence, it could be just one of many different influences, like movies, etc.

It only takes a few extreme anecdotal examples to get the whole industry clamped down on by our nanny state govt. Remember why we aren't allowed to own guns anymore ?

Edited by scorp on Tuesday 9th October 15:12

[Nuclearsquash]

i was being flippant in the extreme. The gov need to runs this review, realise that its down to the parents not them. Put big stickers on games saying "18 is bad mkay", and make shops responsible, refusing to sell games to parents if they belive they will be played by underaged children.

[Mekon]

scorp said:

Steve Evil said:

Exactly, banning manhunt 2 because it's sick and violent, yet letting Hostel 2 come out at the cinema is a bit stupid, better parental education and labelling is all that's necessary.

There is an important difference though, video games are interactive; the player participates and often initiates violence. Although if your stupid enough to be influenced by either video games or movies, then really, you should be disqualified from access to any form of media.

scorp said:

Nuclearsquash said:

Just cos something is interactive doesn't mean you'll do it. Dhamer didnt have access to uber violent video games, his parents divorced and left him on his own. His own sense of isolation and loneliness led him to kill people and keep the bodies/bits of bodies. So perhaps we should ban divorce and make sure people have comapny at all times.

I was thinking that the act of interaction has a greater reinforcement/learning value than observation (in the case of movies). I imagine this will be an argument put forward.

That's an empirical question, worthy of study by behavioural scientists, not people who look good on the telly and do talking therapies with kids.

DrJonboy has promised to send me a "good" paper on the effects of videogames, but so far, all the papers/reviews I've seen have been toss and were they studying the effects of behavioural medicine (my area), would have taken a sound kicking from the reviewers.

[Mekon]

Ah, found the call for evidence. On the case with a colleague from the states (recipient of a $10Mil grant to develop RPGs that promote exercise), trying to get him to submit some good news before the christian-amish coalition try to get GTA4 banneded.

[Fidgits]

Its stupid.

As others have said - neither movies or games promote violence - this is easily proved.


Middle class white america - kids with ALL the latest consoles and games, who buy rap music and watch the likes of 'Saw' dont go around killing each other.

Whereas, the underpriveldged kids in Compton/Inglewood in LA - who dont actually have video games, or get to see movies, spend their lives in a perpetuated circle of violence, that quite often leads to deaths.

From my limited perspective (no physcology degree here) this just shows that the enviroment, such as parents and peers, has a huge impact on a child's behaviour, whereas, movies and video games, have a very limited impact, on a limited suspecable (sp?) minority.

But of course, dealing with the enviroment would mean talking responsibility, both the goverment and parents, of those problem kids who go happy slapping or worse, get involved in drugs and gangs.

Nope, its easier to pick a 'soft target' such as computer games, and blame them, ban them and say "were making your children better by doing this", when infact, the kids sat inside playing manhunt are safe from the gang-bangers stabbing kids for the tenner worth of smack their mobile phone will pay for!

[Will2425]

Part of the problem is the "video games are for children" attitude of the general public.

The average computer games buyer (buying for him/herself) is over 18, and adult themes and content are perfectly suitable things to put in the games he buys

This does not mean they should be available to under-18's, but means they should not be banned entirely, or censored any more strictly than movies.

Once the people making the laws realise this fact we will probably start to see more realistic censorship, which may then be more respected by parents.

[Marf]

Am I experiencing deja vu?

Every few months this (non)issue raises its head.

There is only one thing that needs to be considered, how are children obtaining these video games?

I have no problem with violent content in media, be it films or games, as there is an 18/15/12 certificate applied.

What needs to be more tightly regulated is the sale of these games to children, so there are two areas which need targeting; a) the shops selling the games, and b) the parents of these kids.

To my mind the biggest failure lies at the feet of parents, they should not be allowing their kids to play what they consider to be violent games, end of discussion.

[DucatiGary]

Steve Evil said:

Ravers? Have we gone back to the early nineties?

get with the times grandpa, new rave is all the rage at the moment

Steve Evil said:

Wasn't quoted by the head of Atari anyway;

http://www.marcusbrigstocke.com/pacman.asp

your right, it wasnt by the head of atari, it was the head of atari PR for northern america, in a statement to the government about the effects of video games on US children.

and unlike your post claiming glory I read that originally in 1988, about 15 years before the nobody you refer to claimed it.

I understand you know alot about computergames steve but ive unfortunatly worked in the industry for a long time, thats why I read the original quote.

i cant be bothered to find a link to show you, if you really want me to show you im correct ill email the now ATI employee and ask him to post confirmation himself.

[Nuclearsquash]

ok i know this applies to movies, but an interesting commentary on violence in moviis by Stephen King:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20150871_2,00.html