Are Videogames too violent?

[dream431ca]

Videogames have a bad Reputation.

I mean, come on. Videogames in my mind are not too violent. The biggest problem I see is with the parents and the retailers. If parents paid more attention to the labels on videogames, they wouldn't have to go through all this crap. Videogames are bigger than the movies, because you get to control the character in the game, while in movies, you only watch while the character does something. So it's not you who is doing the actions of the character in the movie. I think the ESRB is doing a great job on rating games. It's not their fault that Rockstar games never told them about the "hot coffee" mod in San Andreas. You physically have to want to find it, if you want to unlock it. It is very well hidden, and is only accessed by going on the internet and finding out how. Why do people continue to listen to Jack Thompson, which he wants Sims 2 Banned from the shelves in every store? He's a maniac, and will not give up until every game company is shut down.

The question: "Are videogames to violent?" The answer of course is NO. The videogames in general are not to violent. It's the type of age group that matters. You don't want to see a 6 year old playing a videogame that is rated for 17 year olds and up. That is the major problem. Developers and the ESRB need bigger signs for parents, so they can decide if the game is ok for their children or not. It's the PARENTS decision! Not the videogame company decision. It's just like the movies. You wouldn't want a 10 year old to see the movie "pulp fiction", or "Kill Bill". That is the equivalent of what is happening the videogame industry. Parents need education. Games are not for just kids anymore. Get over it.

One of my favorite posts from another guy on another forum :E.

"This topic is only for those who get their panties in a knot anytime the see a little bit of blood in a video game and scream that Billy is being traumatized and taught to be a criminal. Well, if the kid is playin it and he's under 14 - then that's on YOU. Git off the sofa and take the bon-bons outta your mouth long enough to pretend that you're a parent. And leave the "violent" video games to the rest of us. Yknow, the ones who know it's just a video game and aren't planning a murder spree because of somethin we watched! Yknow...the 95% of us!!"

 

[15357]

HL2 was too bloody for me until I played HL1.

I got over it.

 

[qckbeam]

Games are not too violent. Games cannot be "too violent". Perhaps a particular game may be too violent for a particular person's taste. That's fine. Don't buy it. All problems solved.

I personally find the average film to be many times more violent than anything I've ever experienced in a game. There's just something about cartoonish red blood splats spawning under the rather tame, unmarked triangular corpses in GTA that can’t compare to, oh, I don't know, any scene in Saving Private Ryan or the public beheading I caught yesterday on CNN.

 

[diluted]

No. That's like saying "are movies too violent?" No, because there are movies for adults, and there are movies for kids. Same goes with video games, there are games for adults and games for kids. For some reason though, people like Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton find the concept of "video games for adults" hard to understand.

 

[staticprimer]

Everyone is doing their jobs right except the parents who are getting upset about this, and the only reason politicians are getting involved is because of these loud-mouthed parents. What is wrong here is the misplacement of the blame.

If a production company/game developer intentionally decieves the ratings board of their respective industry in order to recieve a lower rating, they should be held liable, and not the distributor and parents.

If a distributor sells R/M material to a minor, the disributor should be held liable and not the producer/designer, and perhaps the parents.

However, if the parent purchases a movie ticket/game for their underage child they and nobody else should be held responsable. I refer of course, to the grandmother who sued Rockstar over GTA:SA when she herself bought the game for her 14 year old grandson. Sometimes I seriously question some parents ability and right to raise children. For example, I and a few friends went to see Sin City when it came out in theatres. Now anyone who has seen the movie knows how graphic some parts are. Imagine our shock when a woman sits down infront of us with her two children, one was no older than 10 and the other no older than 5, I kid you not.

What has our country come to when these things can happen and somehow the parents are not at fault? What needs to happen is a crackdown on parents, not the movie or game industry. As far as I'm concerned, they can produce as much obscene material as they wish, as long as it is rated properly. It's called Freedom of Speech, and some people need to read up on their Bill of Rights.

 

[diluted]

Imagine our shock when a woman sits down infront of us with her two children, one was no older than 10 and the other no older than 5, I kid you not.

I've seen that a few times myself. Almost every horror movie I've seen in a theatre, there's some douchebag parent that drags their 5 year old along to see the movie with them. Of course the kid fusses and screams through the whole movie, and is probably going to have nightmares for the next 2 months. That's some nice parenting, idiot. Is it so hard to find a ****ing babysitter? :|

 

[Sparta]

I dont think they're too violent. At least not compared to whats in movies and TV. I think the main reason politicians are going after them is because the videogame industry is an easy target than the television and movie industry.

As for games making people violent, i dont think it depends on the game. Fifa 2005 made me more violent and aggressive than games like Halo and Far Cry. And Fifa has no violence whatsoever

 

[Adabiviak]

Games are not too violent. Games cannot be "too violent". Perhaps a particular game may be too violent for a particular person's taste. That's fine. Don't buy it. All problems solved.

I personally find the average film to be many times more violent than anything I've ever experienced in a game. There's just something about cartoonish red blood splats spawning under the rather tame, unmarked triangular corpses in GTA that can’t compare to, oh, I don't know, any scene in Saving Private Ryan or the public beheading I caught yesterday on CNN.

QFT. Everyone has a line for this somewhere, past which the game would be considered "too" violent. Society has drawn the line somewhere after a "G" movie (hyperbole, sorry). They are still working on profanity on television when they show homicides and whatnot. How's that for a good line.

 

[Mikey10]

No, but there are stupid parents who shouldn't let their kids play violent games. I hate the way these control freaks are trying to blame games for violence and deaths. People have been killing each other for centuries, now all of a sudden video games are to blame for something that's been going on way before their time? What a crock.

 

[Jintor]

As above, Mikey10. As above.



Video games cannot be too violent because, really, what is the limit of violence? Why are videogames blamed for it when there are millions and millinos of little things around that effect the child, effect the childs' growth and developement, TV, comics, books, family life (big one there), friends, what happens on the news, what is happening down the street... and a gory little thing called Videogames are somehow, the ones corrupting our kids and turning them into a generation of misfits and degenerates.

How strange. It's as if one of the major religions in the world wasn't based around a guy who got nailed, and i mean nailed, straight through the flesh-and-bone nailed, to a cross. A large wooden one. Then they put thorns on his head and made him all bloody. And that doesn't effect children...?

 

[Mikey10]

I think if there was a game which involved raping women and kids, that would be crossing the line. But then again, what's less violent. Rape or murder? It's a pretty sensitive subject to debate.

 

[15357]

I think HL2 will be banned for "letting you horrendously kill police officers and soldiers trying to protect citizens"

 

[CptStern]

depends on how you define violence and it also depends on the individual ..the rating system is a good judge as to what's appropriate for most gamers ...they should just be more strict in enforcing it

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

I don't think video games are too violent, they will never be too violent, no matter what the content of the video game is, they will always be rated appropriately.

The media and politicians going on about how there's a violence/crime epidemic with this generation of kids, and how it's somehow caused by violent video games is complete nonsense, simply because this violence/crime epidemic doesn't exist. According to Department of Justice studies, violence and crime among children is at an all time low, if anything violent video games and video games in general are helping to make children less violent.

 

[Korgoth]

I think some video games are actually, say manhunt from rockstar... The whole point of that game is to be as gruesome and violent as possible, I mean the whole point of that game was shock value.

Videogames, like any other media, fell down the "go with what sells hole" and lets face it, violence and sex are what sell. We can judge this by looking at the past and comparing it to today, video games started with tetris, mario, pong, shit like that, and now look where we are, you'd be hard press to find one in every ten games at the store that doesn't involve shooting someone or something.. Don't get me wrong, I love my games, but videogames really have turned quiet violent.

But that is in fact why we have a rating system and age restrictions. With those in place and properly enforced I see absolutely no problem with any game on the market today.

 

[Jintor]

properly enforced

It's in vendor's best intrests not to enforce the whole age restrictions thing, because... well, no-one really complains about it, much. But that means the few that do get in the news...

 

[VictimOfScience]

Yes, video games display violent images, but its impossible to say what is "too violent." Everyone is different, thats why we have the ESRB. What should be looked at is how these kids are playing these games in the first place. The only way for a child under 17 to get an "M" rated game is for someone older to buy it for them, usually an uninformed parent. Stores that sell this material to minors should be prosecuted and not developers. Does a lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch make sense when a store sells a 6-pack to a minor? No. Same thing goes for this ridiculous debate.

And good luck trying to prove that violent games are to blame for, say, murder. Does anyone have even the remotest clue as to how many violent games are sold in the US alone, not to mention the world? And comparatively, how many murders are there to go along with each of those games? The numbers are infinitesimmally small. Move along...

 

[CptStern]

this should settle the debate once and for all:

No Strong Link Seen Between Violent Video Games And Aggression


"After an average playtime of 56 hours over the course of a month with “Asheron’s Call 2,” a popular MMRPG, or “massively multi-layer online role-playing game,” researchers found “no strong effects associated with aggression caused by this violent game,” said Dmitri Williams, the lead author of the study.

Players were not statistically different from the non-playing control group in their beliefs on aggression after playing the game than they were before playing, Williams said.

Nor was game play a predictor of aggressive behaviors. Compared with the control group, the players neither increased their argumentative behaviors after game play nor were significantly more likely to argue with their friends and partners."

 

[The Monkey]

Nein, fraulein.