Representatives from the American the video game industry are meeting with Vice President Joe Biden in Washington today to discuss whether there is a connection between simulated and actual gun violence.
It's the latest in a series of meetings Biden is hosting before he proposes gun policy changes to President Obama on Tuesday. He has also met with representatives from the film and television industries, pro-gun rights groups including the NRA, and others.
Gamasutra can independently confirm that representatives from the ESA are in attendance. Others reportedly include representatives from the ESRB, Activision, EA, E-Line Media, Epic Games, GameStop, Take-Two Interactive and Bethesda and id owner ZeniMax Media, as well as individual researchers, according to consumer video game blog Polygon.
Biden is leading a task force that will present recommendations to the president on new gun control policies in response to last month's elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.
The NRA offered a brief glimpse into yesterday's meetings when it spoke to Reuters, giving the impression that the task force had already made up its mind to recommend stricter gun control laws in the country.
It is unclear what connection, if any, the task force sees between these events and video games, but hopefully we'll gain more insight at the meeting's conclusion. Gamasutra will stay on top of this story as it develops.
An investigation can also result in a result that might excempt games from being pointed at,
Also what should they have done, ignored the matter? there is nothing that makes a man more guilty looking then doing that.
Obviously the debate is flawed to begin with, the guns don't kill people, people kill people is flawed because atleast crimes of passion are a lot harder to commit without a gun.
Also the path to violent crime in times of hardship is a lot harder, and noone can deny that if there are no guns they can;t be used to kill people either.
Now I'm not saying all guns are inherently bad (in Alaska one would need a gun against bears or other large wild animals). But buying a gun for protection is only nescesary when one expects the other to have a weapon as well. most likely a gun.
I have lived int he USA and in Europe, and in europe there are no gun incidents ( if one occurs the entire nation is in shock) and that is because no one has guns. period. If you don't have a gun, it can't be used against you, or be stolen and used against anyone else, and you can't use it in a moment of pure hate and anger.
Anyways, I do think games have some influence on human behaviour, we make people laugh, scream at their tv in frustration only to release the joy of succes, or take their frustration in life and making them feel good... we are even trying to make people cry, so on an emotional level we are having some impact at least.
on a behavioural level however our impact is much less profound if at all present.
there are some serious games that are trying to teach people desired effects, but there is not a lot I have learned in call of duty i'd use in real life, nor from donkey kong, or LA Noire or GTA for that matter.
also if games have an effect, then books have too, they are open to imagination spparking interest, as well as tv series and movies and comics
so I do understand some of the feeling of being unfairly judged, then again we are the only interactive medium so a little bit of extra exposure is to be expected.
In the end "I" think games have a non existant to extremely negligable effect on people in such a negative way. Games are designed to be Fun and that is what most of them do, sure some can frustrate but none have been designed to fuel hate and spur on destructive thoughts in the real world.
Also the people that commit these extreme acts of violence would most likely have been triggered another way if not for games, (if games were the trigger at all) these people are usually (if not always) psychologically unstable to begin with and had the means and oppertunity. *too little control*
check santa monica beach the homeless people there get 0 psychological help, I cannot but wonder how bad this is in the rest of the country.
And lets be honest, humanity has blaimed everything, from the devil, to demons, to Rock music, to games, movies, and free sex for all the crimes including murder, and never has it really been the cause in hindsight, and it will be the same for games.
atleast if the argument can be made : guns don;t kill people , people kill people, then:
games don;t kill people, people kill people...
still a terrible argument, but it can atleast be used to show how terrible the other argument is. and then we can maybe move on to a proper realisation of how to combat this issue. hint it is not more guns...
The simulated use of a weapon to injure simulated entities does not place an actual gun against your head forcing you to acquire a physical weapon to injure actual living beings.
An individual's inherent character traits and mental state invokes the pulling of a trigger in violence.
The manifestation of that violence may be colored by fictional media influences, but the impetus to actually act out is entirely a byproduct of the individual's inherent character traits. It comes down to the human in question.
It is up to those surrounding that individual at any stage of their life to recognize said behavior and act to control or direct it, not hide or protect it. Nor should they -- perhaps unknowingly, by facilitating local access to weapons -- support the physical manifestation of violent and depraved actions in that individual.
Exactly Mike. Guns don't kill people or pull their own triggers. *Psychos* kill people. Doing it in a video game does not necessarily constitute a psycho.
But when you have a gun, it sure is a lot easier to kill a lot of people.
Since you can't stop crazy psycho people from being crazy psycho people, maybe the first step would be to stop giving them the tools to be so effective at being crazy and psychotic.
It's really easy to kill an individual in certain circumstances. If you're not in those circumstances, it's quite an effort. Doing it in large numbers is the work of serial killers and is nontrivial. However if you have a weapon that can fire a large number of shots in quick succession, you can walk into a crowd and pop pop pop kill ten people. Or twenty.
This of course is not the only use case; it's kind of hard to do a drive-by with archery.
There is a decent number of incidents – big and small – that would not occur without guns.
This may be strawmanish, but you wouldn't legalize nuclear weapons saying "nukes don't kill people, people kill people" because you know that people do kill people and there would be more, worse incidents if nuclear weapons were all over the place.
Modern guns are a little like that; there are things that people can do with them that would be simply extraordinary to impossible with a swords, muzzle-loaders, whatever.
You can envision people still making bombs or bringing down planes without them, yet those things just don't happen so often. Al Qaeda (for example) has tried multiple times in the past ten years to blow up planes, leading to a series of high profile failures.
Since 9/11 we've been able to do a good job of intercepting such people because of the substantial planning one has to do. Crazed gunners, on the other hand, do not permit this defense. You can buy or obtain a gun fit for purpose, then go and perform the crime. Until you start shooting, there is very little even an omniscient law enforcement can do.
What exactly to do about all this – if anything! – is not a simple matter.
But this statement ("guns don't kill people") simply isn't a useful one.
The American Left has always been big on control of appearance and media input. It's why they rebranded themselves "Progressives", abandoning "Liberals".
In my darker moments, I wonder whether Biden's task force is an inquisition designed to legitimate gun control laws Democtrats walked in wanting. The implied message to us would then be get behind "guns are the problem" or be tarred along with them.
I don't know how behind this idea even I am. It's just where my mind goes when I'm feeling cynical, pessimistic and a little paranoid.
I think the thing that worries me is that so many people jumped on the anti-assault weapon band wagon, and assault weapons have nothing to do with the problem. Similarly some people being anti-gun not knowing the difference between semi-automatic and automatic guns.
It makes me very worried when people start arguing over legislation that they have demonstrable ignorance of.
While I agree with many of you that video games are not one of the main contributors to violence in society, I'd like to point out 2 things:
1) The media (including us) is not blameless, so we should not be exempt from the discussion.
2) Interactive media has the greatest potential for making positive change in our culture, so while we may not be the primary culprit in causing harm, we can become one of the leaders in something positive.
I agree with point 2, but point 1 and the statement "video games are not one of the main contributors" are wrong. It's been more then proven that violent video games & movies have no causal link to violent crimes.
ThomQ, actually leading Amerrican universities have had recent brain research that concludes that violent video games and media does make one more aggressive for a period of time. So please stop asserting this is 'no casual link" nonsense. Much more science is needed.
Personally I dont need think we need to wait for research in order to tell us that glorification of gun violence is not necessarily a good or healthy thing for a society.
Ask yourself this, can games teach? can games be helpful and positive? of course they can, so if they can teach and be positive influence in ones life, they certainly can go the other way as well, and be harmful and be a bad influence if we are not careful.
TC; a period of aggression is not violent behavior, so that's not what I was talking about.
And yeah, I agree with the fact that games can teach, and be an positive or negative influence, of course, i'm not disputing that in any way :)
But again, violent entertainment does not lead to real life violent behavior. I try to explain myself in my comment below.
This is what happens when we divert from the real issues due to political rhetoric and misinformation.
Rather than helping people and families with poor or no healthcare deal with illness or counseling the Government will spend millions on a study of video games that has already been accomplished by the millions and millions of people who have grown up playing video games and not killed anyone or committed a violent crime.
So if they find a connection between gun violence and video games then owning a gun will suddenly be alright, because people don't kill people, video games kill people. Makes sense.
@ Maciej Bacal - That's not necessarily the case, but that may be what the NRA higher-ups wants for the majority of the people to believe. As I kept on saying over and over again elsewhere, videogames wouldn't even be in the spotlight if LaPierre hadn't used videogames as a scapegoat to protect/shield NRA.
Young people ages 10 - 20, who spend 4 to 6 hours a day, playing games that 'simulate killing people with semi-automatic weapons, guns, grenades, knives etc' ARE affected. One word. Desensitization.
I noticed a common ' anger ' by video game employees against the correlation. Anger often by people who don't have kids themselves, so have zero- knowledge of the subject.
If you have kids, everyone notices put on your 6 - 10 year old onto a fighting / combat game, and you'll have problems all week with your child being MORE violent, MORE aggressive with other kids.
Let's get real. The #1 seller 2012 a call of duty ' simulated killing ' game.
If these kids didn't play these games the likeihood of them thinking to 'really use a gun' on people would be WAY less.
Last note Mike - your posts sound like a teenager trying to use www.thesaurus.com to sound intelligent. Stop over compensating for something. Smart people dont' have to 'try' to sound smart.
Chad, kindly refrain from asserting unpleasantries toward fellow associates of the Gamasutra commonwealth, particularly as they relate to material that inspires such heated debate.
Street Fighter 4 has a T rating. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 has an M rating. If you're letting your 6 year old kid play those, then that's just bad parenting. Nobody argues that ratings are bad and that kids should play M rated games.
BS. Been playing games and no less violent games, watching murder movies etc.. since I was 4 years old and I still cry when my boy bumps his head. Shoot, I don't own a gun and work on jet aircraft and I still get my feelings hurt when the boss is a dick. Shut up fool.
"If these kids didn't play these games the likeihood of them thinking to 'really use a gun' on people would be WAY less. "
Kids think about doing a lot of things, and rather than trying to prevent the thoughts, it may be easier to prevent the means. We don't have rules against thoughts, we have rules against actions.
I would love to disagree with Chad but I know as a kid my sisters said whenever I watched an episode of teenage mutant ninja turtles i would be kicking everything within range ESPECIALLY my siblings. it's one of those difficult issues because i know growing up i was never a particularly violent kid but then again i am just one of billions of people so for me to say a game has never influenced violence would be like someone saying games have always made kids violent which i would consider myself proof that's not true.
I do think parenting determines whether or not spurts of a kid re-enacting the media digest becomes a cause for concern or one of those little phases they go through as they develop in life. I feel like parenting never gets enough discussion on issues like this.
Where did you get your sources? Other evidence points otherwise. I was playing violent video games since I was six years old but I did not turn violent or aggressive. What explains that (probably thanks to G-d for bringing me a healthy religious upbringing). And yet I am terrified of the thought of even holding a gun. If it was not for 'violent video games' I would not have the motivation to start college at 15 working towards my computer science major. If I were a game designer I would not make another violent video game since I do agree that it is artistically insensitive for all the shootings that are occurring. But right now there is little evidence and virtually no explanation as to how violent video games make kids violent. Any law inhibiting freedom of speech or artistic expression would be terrifying and demotivating for the entire economy.
The NRA is almost completely pointing their finger at anyone/anything other than guns. I think the videogame industry should do the opposite of the NRA and actually negotiate in good faith and offer tangible things THEY (the videogame industry) can do to help. I think this might be some more intense studies on videogames and violence as well as more aggressive steps to prevent game sales to minors.....or actual age verification online (through XBLA) for violent games.
@ D PH - Actually, that's not a bad idea! Not only that would make the videogame industry look respectable and reasonable, but it would also make the NRA higher-ups look unrealistic and irrational.
I agree that a strong, mature approach has to be taken to meet the irrational reactionaries from the NRA. But we can't allow ourselves to be railroaded either. The line in the sand should be drawn at the point where civil liability kicks in. If video game makers can be sued for for damages caused by video games, then so should gun makers and anybody associated with the production and distribution of guns and ammunition.
@ Andrew Webber - That's the thing! D PH was actually giving a strategy that would help the videogame industry look good and that would take away NRA's talking points against videogames and the videogame industry. Combining with Dimitri's strategy, the videogame industry would be able to disable NRA's ability to use videogames as a scapegoat.
@ Thom Q - Nothing is wrong with them and that actually has been talked about by the Gamasutra readers on other articles. However, it never hurts to have more studies done, especially studies that show autistic people's reaction to videogames (I wouldn't mind volunteering for that one as I was diagnosed with HFA years ago and feel that I could be of service).
... except these aren't the NRA's talking points. People have brought up violent video games, music, TV, movies etc every time something like this happened. The media was already making a big deal of this guy's games habits before LaPierre said anything.
And as for the NRA - LaPierre spent weeks being called a monster by every left-wing operative in the country. While it's not cool that he tried to deflect blame onto games and movies, I completely understand.
The NRA defends the Second Amendment like the ACLU defends the First Amendment. If you blame the NRA for gun violence you have to blame the ACLU for 'hate speech'.
The true tragedy here is the people standing on these kids' corpses to push their agendas. If such a thing as shame still existed, I would say they should be ashamed.
Jefferson: "However, it never hurts to have more studies done, especially studies that show autistic people's reaction to videogames "
I totally agree, and there is much more to learn from video-games and interactive entertainment, and it could be used in many more ways then we probably even think possible.
What I meant with my comment basically is that if a study is just being done to please a crowd, while the same studies have been done before but have been ignored, is a bit of a waste.
@ Andrew Webber - Actually, even members of the NRA and CNN (which tends to be right-leaning) are not happy with LaPierre. You can try to attack the people from the left all you want, but at the end of the day, there are people from the left, right, and center that agree that gun violence has gone on for long enough. Gun violence may be nothing new and has been going on for years with adults and children getting killed by guns, but the Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre was what ultimately made people say that enough is enough and that the time for dealing with the problem for later is over. Also, the attacks on videogames and the videogame industry may be nothing new, but that doesn't change that LaPierre used it as scapegoat and that he put the industry on the spotlight, making matters worse of the industry. The NRA can't claim that it is protected by the Second Amendment, while attacking a media form that's protected by the First Amendment. If videogames aren't allowed to be protected by the First Amendment, then NRA shouldn't be protected by the Second Amendment.
The US has the biggest military for the last 60 years, the most private gun owners, and one of the biggest gun cultures since the cowboys road the land.
It also has the most violent crimes and murders in the western world.. (Also biggest gap between rich & poor, most inmates, worst public schooling etc)
The fact that movie & video-game violence is even being raised as a cause of this, again, is pretty absurd. Ostriches don't stick their heads that deep in ground.. It's pretty baffling to watch the whole circus again..
We in the EU play the same games, see the same movies, but have way less violent crimes. Maybe the fact that we can't buy guns and ammo at the mall or in a supermarket has something to do with it?
And still, days into the fact that Mr Biden is meeting with some industry big-wigs is in the news internationally, Still no-one steps up (except IDGA) and shows the big stack of studies done on the subject and saying "Can We Please stop this Nonsensical discussion and get back to fixing the problem??"
No-one. I bet you ESRB, Activision, EA, E-Line Media, Epic Games, GameStop, Take-Two Interactive and Bethesda and id owner ZeniMax Media won't.
Edit: Thom Q - Here is the official opinion of the American Psychological Association, the largest professional organization of research psychologists:
http://tinyurl.com/bpn3p5n
And here are some of the studies published on their website:
http://tinyurl.com/bzrwemn
http://tinyurl.com/b9xgoda
http://tinyurl.com/a7369e2
http://tinyurl.com/38ea5ss
http://tinyurl.com/a9nbbxj
There are more studies on their website, of course, but those are on video gaming effects hand-eye coordination, not the effects of violent content. So there's that.
I have never mentioned to ignore age ratings, and I 100% agree that children / minors shouldn't be exposed to stuff that isn't suited / rated for them. And I dont think that's what the debate is about, either..
Also, aggression is not violent behavior , especially in the short term, which is the kind of aggression being triggered by some games for certain people..
And I am more then aware of the other negative effects too much gaming can have, as well as how they compare to the negative impact of other solo activities being done in extreme measures.
I was talking about violent media leading to violent behavior, something I've been following for more then 10 years now. Studies from Harvard, the US government, the UK government, the German government, and much more, showed no causal link between the two. Other factors weigh so much more if a person becomes violent, that the effects of violent media are next to negligible.
So, Yes indeed, children should not be exposed to violent content, never said that though. And yes gaming can cause temporary aggression, never said that it didnt, and yes too much gaming can cause a whole bunch of other negative effects of which I never said it didnt. I agree with the links you posted, they are solid. But that was not what I was talking about.
Violent media does however Not lead to violent behavior, and I think that's what's important here. I dont care about defending violent games, but I do think that to keep coming back on the same old chewed dog toy that is The Violence in Media, which again, should only be enjoyed by Adults, is not helping the problem. As a matter of fact, the real causes keep getting ignored..
And @ TC, as I replied to your other comment, I agree on you with that 100%! :)
or the book Grand Theft Childhood written by co-directors of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media
I'd spare you the German ones ;)
But I don't want to play the cherry picking game. I'm sure that if you google enough, you'll find studies claiming that violent media Does cause violent behaviour. It's about the body of studies on the subject, the general consensus, with which the IDGA also agrees.
One last thing: Juvenile violent crime rates have been going down in the US since the 90's, while media has been getting more violent.
Thom -- Did you see this? The Wall Street Journal has posted a story on how the meeting went.
What Biden’s Meeting With the Video Game Industry Really Meant
"Christopher Ferguson, a professor of psychology who has researched and written extensively about the impact of violent video games on their players and attended the meeting “as a researcher” for Texas A&M;, told Speakeasy in a phone interview after the meeting that he was “cautiously optimistic” about its outcomes...
...Ferguson said that today’s conference showed him that the game industry doesn’t “necessarily need to change anything they’re doing,” but instead focus on “how they’re perceived by the public.”
“What the industry needs to do is take the Vice President’s advice and really think about: what are some positive things that the industry can do? Public education campaigns about the ERSB rating systems, trying to avoid some blatant missteps like having a gun manufacturer as part of their website, that kind of stuff,” Ferguson said, referring to a controversial campaign in which Electronic Arts embedded links to weapons manufacturers’ products in the promotional website for its military shooter “Medal of Honor: Warfighter.”
The government - the same people raining drone fire on women and children around the world - sanctimoniously dictates to you how you should think and how you should create your art, and you swoon. How pathetic are you?
@Andrew Webber
We generally don't insult each other here. It makes for better dialog, if we don't. Recently there have been some that do. I think it's because gamer magazines have been sourcing the site. Please try to refrain for doing it. It's really much better for everyone if we keep the level of dialog civil.
Andrew: First of all, I think that what came out of the meeting is on of the most nuanced views anyone could expect. Second, they clearly state that "government" has no desire to dictate anything on the content of games.
I am glad that they do stress the importance of keeping to the age guidelines, and not to keep their advertisements "classy". I like that about your current administration, as do I like the fact that it seems real gun regulation is around the corner.. So yeah, I am liking them more and more.
It's probably more pathetic to not read anything, just assume the opposite, and then spouting that in a unfounded post.
Violent games cause violent behavior is a no win position.
There are alot of very smart people working in games. But I think too many defense mechanisms kick in on this issue particularly when the argument is worded in this typical way. "Violent games cause violence" is designed to cause a bunch of wheel spinning and goings to nowhere.
I prefer to look at the influence of games in the same way as I do the influence of all mass media. There are not only opportunity costs to consuming frivolous media. There IS a learning of concepts that are of dubious value or worse. Money and guns give you dominance and power. Violence solves problems (no blowblack, no real consequences). Diplomacy has little to no value. Empathy is for sissies. Shortcuts ftw. It's not about how you play the game. Winning is all that matters. Points! High scores! The opposition is one dimensionally evil, they are dumb and they are inferior. Civility is weakness. Females are sex objects. Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like Lara? Being and behaving in an intelligent manner is lame. Getting drunk, high or stoned is cool. Turning your brain off and learning to enjoy stupid tv/games/films is good. Get a Roku. Debate is another word for a yelling match where the last man standing wins. Torture gets results. You're not stupid, everyone else is. Stupid only counts if you're broke and powerless. If you're as unsophisticated and stupid as the bum sitting the in the gutter but you have a fat bank account, you are winning. Vice is exciting. Virtue is for idealistic morons who don't understand how the real world works. Etc, etc, etc.
The games industry will never have anything to fear reguarding the "violent games cause kids to snap" argument. It's one of those arguments that will channel us all down a pointless dead-end series of conversations. Go us.
Much of the media we consume, much of the media we make will not result in the betterment of humanity nor the world we live. That's just a fact. Indeed it has helped us all become masters of hypocrisy. Hey brother and sister, consume my mind shaping garbage but if you forget to check in with the personal responsibility region of your brain (you know, that region we were all born with) and you end up ignorant, saddled with vices, mental health issues, etc... well that's on YOU.
BLAME YOURSELF AND YOUR PARENTS because that is who I will be blaming. I had nothing to do with it. Our marketing department didn't hold a gun to your head making you buy our product even though we denied that it would cause you any harm whatsoever and even though we fought tooth and nail against legislation that would force us to label it as such. (Although if we have to, we'll settle for PG-13, R, M for Mature because they don't adequately describe the depths of the harm and the ratings board will just tally up tits and swear words which are heavily discounted because we've all seen and heard them anyway!!! WHeeeeee!) We just wanted to give you enjoyment and this is how you repaid us? Now excuse us while we brush our teeth without gazing at our own reflections in the mirror.
Alas, if only we had all eaten from a tree of knowledge of good and evil and we magically understood in the deepest sense, what made good beneficial and evil destructive. No joy. We have to teach each other.
Does a baby have free will? Does it have personal responsibility? Or, at what age does it acquire either of these things?
Does free will and or personal responsibility remain intact and uninfluenced and unbiased throughout the life of the individual? Can either of these things be influenced by parents, peers, teachers, media, culture, society?
If so, does this not denote a multi-shared responsibility? If not, why not? In other words, are we or are we not our brothers' and sisters' keepers?
If call of duty and the rest want to be accurate, why dont they have blaring babies crying, men women screaming, scented candles packed in the game that smell like black powder, blood, shit and piss. Smoke that fills your room Have the game make little sense after the first few seconds. Thats WARfare on the front lines. Its insanity. Why not portray what it really is?
@ TC Weidner - Actually, that's a good question! Since there are people that are so intent on making games realistic, then why not do what you just said?
Unfortunately, I can already picture the discussion from said "experts."
Industry representatives: "Video games don't cause this behavior. Parents and other media do."
Government: "Isn't Video games other media?"
Representatives: "Yeah, but we're exempt from it. Go bother the other media. They're more guilty."
Government: "We already do and are. We're adding you guys now. Congratulations, you're now considered more important than toys."
Representatives: "No! They are more guilty! Leave us alone! We just want to be a niche market who appeals to everyone but doesn't accept any of the social responsibilities!"
Double standards, double standards. Video game companies like Activision goes after the easiest money and the quickest emotion to appeal to: violence. It's direct, it's brutal, and is one of our primal instincts. Unfortunately, they care only for the short term gains, and don't realize the consequences of feeding on an emotion that influences outside violent behavior. Broken controllers, broken televisions, and essentially greater stress, something video games are suppose to "relieve."
Football has a lot of hitting. But rules are in place to show to everyone that you are penalized for your actions. Hockey has a lot more fighting. Once again, rules are there to penalize foul play. These rules are implanted to discourage this action and acts as a social lesson that violent or destructive behaviors are not good. Then in comes video games.
+1 for shooting down that guy. +100 for a kill streak. Then enters visuals, and sound effects meant to elicit good feelings that what you did was a good thing. No rules saying "shooting everyone is wrong. Go all out." It filters into the growing child's head. This isn't about parents anymore. One way or another, kids are still getting access to these games. So instead of addressing this issue professionally, the game industry instead says it's not their fault and continues to not take responsibility for their actions.
Stop defending the game industry you know and love, and start realizing its flaws.
Great comment. I fear some in this industry just want to shirk any responsibility because to do anything other, would mean to take a deep long look at themselves and to realize what they are creating and pushing into society with their time and talents. For some that wont be too easy.
Im not for government censorship at all, I'm for human decency.
What we all do matters.
"Broken controllers, broken televisions, and essentially greater stress, something video games are suppose to "relieve." "
I disagree that stuff like this is actually caused by on screen violence. It's more like it is caused by failure and (sometimes perceived) unfairness. Monopoly or it's video game analogue Mario Party are notorious for pissing all the participants off.
I'm not saying violence has no effect, but if it does it isn't immediate. The whole point about conditioning kids has some merit though. Maybe age rating should take stuff like that into account?
If there would be anything I could relate to games as a possible part of the problem, it'd be the escapist nature of power fantasies. In how they might psychologically reinforce the current worldwide high-expectations culture.
Society expectations are good at leveraging that problem, so are comparisons with other people's lives, and so are the act of escaping into a virtual world where you can experience contrasting first-hand simulations of the perceived "happy life". Especially when all good life lessons are intentionally and pamper-y cut away from these, from when games used to be first-hand versions of proverbs as "fall seven times, stand up eight".
Character progression, player-centered universe, positive reinforcement, extrinsic rewards, global hero status. If there's a real connection between suicide-types/mass-shooters and video games, it's that they were already trying to escape life in the first place.
The global idea that one can only be happy being richer and better than everybody else and being praised all the time and getting all the prettiest mates and the most expensive car and the biggest house is a possible influential reason on a fair amount of depression and suicide cases, of which mass shootings are a small, attention-seeking share of.
Sure guns leverage the consequences, give a suicide-type a gun and he might take other people with him, sure. Again, blaming "violence" as a cause instead of seeing it as the consequence it is, is already all the way into the wrong direction.
There is one fact that can be considered: in most of the countries in Europe and other parts of the world where the people play the same games, see the same movies, there have never been any kind of 'gun violence'. The main difference is that in those countries you can not buy a gun without the proper license and psychiatric evaluation.
I think it's fair to say they see a connection, there would be absolutely zero interest in video games if they didn't.
When you have no intention or capability to remove guns from all of your citizens, you gotta blame something else.
Also what should they have done, ignored the matter? there is nothing that makes a man more guilty looking then doing that.
Obviously the debate is flawed to begin with, the guns don't kill people, people kill people is flawed because atleast crimes of passion are a lot harder to commit without a gun.
Also the path to violent crime in times of hardship is a lot harder, and noone can deny that if there are no guns they can;t be used to kill people either.
Now I'm not saying all guns are inherently bad (in Alaska one would need a gun against bears or other large wild animals). But buying a gun for protection is only nescesary when one expects the other to have a weapon as well. most likely a gun.
I have lived int he USA and in Europe, and in europe there are no gun incidents ( if one occurs the entire nation is in shock) and that is because no one has guns. period. If you don't have a gun, it can't be used against you, or be stolen and used against anyone else, and you can't use it in a moment of pure hate and anger.
Anyways, I do think games have some influence on human behaviour, we make people laugh, scream at their tv in frustration only to release the joy of succes, or take their frustration in life and making them feel good... we are even trying to make people cry, so on an emotional level we are having some impact at least.
on a behavioural level however our impact is much less profound if at all present.
there are some serious games that are trying to teach people desired effects, but there is not a lot I have learned in call of duty i'd use in real life, nor from donkey kong, or LA Noire or GTA for that matter.
also if games have an effect, then books have too, they are open to imagination spparking interest, as well as tv series and movies and comics
so I do understand some of the feeling of being unfairly judged, then again we are the only interactive medium so a little bit of extra exposure is to be expected.
In the end "I" think games have a non existant to extremely negligable effect on people in such a negative way. Games are designed to be Fun and that is what most of them do, sure some can frustrate but none have been designed to fuel hate and spur on destructive thoughts in the real world.
Also the people that commit these extreme acts of violence would most likely have been triggered another way if not for games, (if games were the trigger at all) these people are usually (if not always) psychologically unstable to begin with and had the means and oppertunity. *too little control*
check santa monica beach the homeless people there get 0 psychological help, I cannot but wonder how bad this is in the rest of the country.
And lets be honest, humanity has blaimed everything, from the devil, to demons, to Rock music, to games, movies, and free sex for all the crimes including murder, and never has it really been the cause in hindsight, and it will be the same for games.
atleast if the argument can be made : guns don;t kill people , people kill people, then:
games don;t kill people, people kill people...
still a terrible argument, but it can atleast be used to show how terrible the other argument is. and then we can maybe move on to a proper realisation of how to combat this issue. hint it is not more guns...
If you think people in Europe don't have guns and that there aren't any gun incidents, I feel sorry for you.
Laws are only as effective as the means to enforce them. People are shot in Europe all the time.
An individual's inherent character traits and mental state invokes the pulling of a trigger in violence.
The manifestation of that violence may be colored by fictional media influences, but the impetus to actually act out is entirely a byproduct of the individual's inherent character traits. It comes down to the human in question.
It is up to those surrounding that individual at any stage of their life to recognize said behavior and act to control or direct it, not hide or protect it. Nor should they -- perhaps unknowingly, by facilitating local access to weapons -- support the physical manifestation of violent and depraved actions in that individual.
But when you have a gun, it sure is a lot easier to kill a lot of people.
Since you can't stop crazy psycho people from being crazy psycho people, maybe the first step would be to stop giving them the tools to be so effective at being crazy and psychotic.
This of course is not the only use case; it's kind of hard to do a drive-by with archery.
There is a decent number of incidents – big and small – that would not occur without guns.
This may be strawmanish, but you wouldn't legalize nuclear weapons saying "nukes don't kill people, people kill people" because you know that people do kill people and there would be more, worse incidents if nuclear weapons were all over the place.
Modern guns are a little like that; there are things that people can do with them that would be simply extraordinary to impossible with a swords, muzzle-loaders, whatever.
You can envision people still making bombs or bringing down planes without them, yet those things just don't happen so often. Al Qaeda (for example) has tried multiple times in the past ten years to blow up planes, leading to a series of high profile failures.
Since 9/11 we've been able to do a good job of intercepting such people because of the substantial planning one has to do. Crazed gunners, on the other hand, do not permit this defense. You can buy or obtain a gun fit for purpose, then go and perform the crime. Until you start shooting, there is very little even an omniscient law enforcement can do.
What exactly to do about all this – if anything! – is not a simple matter.
But this statement ("guns don't kill people") simply isn't a useful one.
In my darker moments, I wonder whether Biden's task force is an inquisition designed to legitimate gun control laws Democtrats walked in wanting. The implied message to us would then be get behind "guns are the problem" or be tarred along with them.
I don't know how behind this idea even I am. It's just where my mind goes when I'm feeling cynical, pessimistic and a little paranoid.
It makes me very worried when people start arguing over legislation that they have demonstrable ignorance of.
1) The media (including us) is not blameless, so we should not be exempt from the discussion.
2) Interactive media has the greatest potential for making positive change in our culture, so while we may not be the primary culprit in causing harm, we can become one of the leaders in something positive.
Personally I dont need think we need to wait for research in order to tell us that glorification of gun violence is not necessarily a good or healthy thing for a society.
Ask yourself this, can games teach? can games be helpful and positive? of course they can, so if they can teach and be positive influence in ones life, they certainly can go the other way as well, and be harmful and be a bad influence if we are not careful.
And yeah, I agree with the fact that games can teach, and be an positive or negative influence, of course, i'm not disputing that in any way :)
But again, violent entertainment does not lead to real life violent behavior. I try to explain myself in my comment below.
You say aggression is not violence, it is a precursor however.
Rather than helping people and families with poor or no healthcare deal with illness or counseling the Government will spend millions on a study of video games that has already been accomplished by the millions and millions of people who have grown up playing video games and not killed anyone or committed a violent crime.
Young people ages 10 - 20, who spend 4 to 6 hours a day, playing games that 'simulate killing people with semi-automatic weapons, guns, grenades, knives etc' ARE affected. One word. Desensitization.
I noticed a common ' anger ' by video game employees against the correlation. Anger often by people who don't have kids themselves, so have zero- knowledge of the subject.
If you have kids, everyone notices put on your 6 - 10 year old onto a fighting / combat game, and you'll have problems all week with your child being MORE violent, MORE aggressive with other kids.
Let's get real. The #1 seller 2012 a call of duty ' simulated killing ' game.
If these kids didn't play these games the likeihood of them thinking to 'really use a gun' on people would be WAY less.
Last note Mike - your posts sound like a teenager trying to use www.thesaurus.com to sound intelligent. Stop over compensating for something. Smart people dont' have to 'try' to sound smart.
"If these kids didn't play these games the likeihood of them thinking to 'really use a gun' on people would be WAY less. "
Kids think about doing a lot of things, and rather than trying to prevent the thoughts, it may be easier to prevent the means. We don't have rules against thoughts, we have rules against actions.
I do think parenting determines whether or not spurts of a kid re-enacting the media digest becomes a cause for concern or one of those little phases they go through as they develop in life. I feel like parenting never gets enough discussion on issues like this.
Do, or do not. There is no try.
Watch them back down when that gets to the table.
Really? After 15+ years of studies there should be more? Why? Whats wrong with all the studies that are already completed?
And as for the NRA - LaPierre spent weeks being called a monster by every left-wing operative in the country. While it's not cool that he tried to deflect blame onto games and movies, I completely understand.
The NRA defends the Second Amendment like the ACLU defends the First Amendment. If you blame the NRA for gun violence you have to blame the ACLU for 'hate speech'.
The true tragedy here is the people standing on these kids' corpses to push their agendas. If such a thing as shame still existed, I would say they should be ashamed.
I totally agree, and there is much more to learn from video-games and interactive entertainment, and it could be used in many more ways then we probably even think possible.
What I meant with my comment basically is that if a study is just being done to please a crowd, while the same studies have been done before but have been ignored, is a bit of a waste.
It also has the most violent crimes and murders in the western world.. (Also biggest gap between rich & poor, most inmates, worst public schooling etc)
The fact that movie & video-game violence is even being raised as a cause of this, again, is pretty absurd. Ostriches don't stick their heads that deep in ground.. It's pretty baffling to watch the whole circus again..
We in the EU play the same games, see the same movies, but have way less violent crimes. Maybe the fact that we can't buy guns and ammo at the mall or in a supermarket has something to do with it?
And still, days into the fact that Mr Biden is meeting with some industry big-wigs is in the news internationally, Still no-one steps up (except IDGA) and shows the big stack of studies done on the subject and saying "Can We Please stop this Nonsensical discussion and get back to fixing the problem??"
No-one. I bet you ESRB, Activision, EA, E-Line Media, Epic Games, GameStop, Take-Two Interactive and Bethesda and id owner ZeniMax Media won't.
Edit: Thom Q - Here is the official opinion of the American Psychological Association, the largest professional organization of research psychologists:
http://tinyurl.com/bpn3p5n
And here are some of the studies published on their website:
http://tinyurl.com/bzrwemn
http://tinyurl.com/b9xgoda
http://tinyurl.com/a7369e2
http://tinyurl.com/38ea5ss
http://tinyurl.com/a9nbbxj
There are more studies on their website, of course, but those are on video gaming effects hand-eye coordination, not the effects of violent content. So there's that.
And this:
http://tinyurl.com/26obozz
And this on the "steam valve effect":
http://tinyurl.com/cgaxmg7
as I mentioned above, if games can teach and be a positive influence in people lives, why is it ludicrous to think they can do the opposite as well.
Its time everyone takes stock at what they bring to our culture.
Also, aggression is not violent behavior , especially in the short term, which is the kind of aggression being triggered by some games for certain people..
And I am more then aware of the other negative effects too much gaming can have, as well as how they compare to the negative impact of other solo activities being done in extreme measures.
I was talking about violent media leading to violent behavior, something I've been following for more then 10 years now. Studies from Harvard, the US government, the UK government, the German government, and much more, showed no causal link between the two. Other factors weigh so much more if a person becomes violent, that the effects of violent media are next to negligible.
So, Yes indeed, children should not be exposed to violent content, never said that though. And yes gaming can cause temporary aggression, never said that it didnt, and yes too much gaming can cause a whole bunch of other negative effects of which I never said it didnt. I agree with the links you posted, they are solid. But that was not what I was talking about.
Violent media does however Not lead to violent behavior, and I think that's what's important here. I dont care about defending violent games, but I do think that to keep coming back on the same old chewed dog toy that is The Violence in Media, which again, should only be enjoyed by Adults, is not helping the problem. As a matter of fact, the real causes keep getting ignored..
And @ TC, as I replied to your other comment, I agree on you with that 100%! :)
edit: I found the Harvard one. Cool.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/253399
American Sociological Association,
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2003906/us-teen-violence-study-exonerates- video-g
ames
Harvard Health Publications:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Le tter/2010/Octo
ber/violent-video-games-and-young-people
or the book Grand Theft Childhood written by co-directors of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media
I'd spare you the German ones ;)
But I don't want to play the cherry picking game. I'm sure that if you google enough, you'll find studies claiming that violent media Does cause violent behaviour. It's about the body of studies on the subject, the general consensus, with which the IDGA also agrees.
One last thing: Juvenile violent crime rates have been going down in the US since the 90's, while media has been getting more violent.
What Biden’s Meeting With the Video Game Industry Really Meant
"Christopher Ferguson, a professor of psychology who has researched and written extensively about the impact of violent video games on their players and attended the meeting “as a researcher” for Texas A&M;, told Speakeasy in a phone interview after the meeting that he was “cautiously optimistic” about its outcomes...
...Ferguson said that today’s conference showed him that the game industry doesn’t “necessarily need to change anything they’re doing,” but instead focus on “how they’re perceived by the public.”
“What the industry needs to do is take the Vice President’s advice and really think about: what are some positive things that the industry can do? Public education campaigns about the ERSB rating systems, trying to avoid some blatant missteps like having a gun manufacturer as part of their website, that kind of stuff,” Ferguson said, referring to a controversial campaign in which Electronic Arts embedded links to weapons manufacturers’ products in the promotional website for its military shooter “Medal of Honor: Warfighter.”
http://tinyurl.com/a4kfwek
Starting to like the Obama administration more and more!
We generally don't insult each other here. It makes for better dialog, if we don't. Recently there have been some that do. I think it's because gamer magazines have been sourcing the site. Please try to refrain for doing it. It's really much better for everyone if we keep the level of dialog civil.
I am glad that they do stress the importance of keeping to the age guidelines, and not to keep their advertisements "classy". I like that about your current administration, as do I like the fact that it seems real gun regulation is around the corner.. So yeah, I am liking them more and more.
It's probably more pathetic to not read anything, just assume the opposite, and then spouting that in a unfounded post.
There are alot of very smart people working in games. But I think too many defense mechanisms kick in on this issue particularly when the argument is worded in this typical way. "Violent games cause violence" is designed to cause a bunch of wheel spinning and goings to nowhere.
I prefer to look at the influence of games in the same way as I do the influence of all mass media. There are not only opportunity costs to consuming frivolous media. There IS a learning of concepts that are of dubious value or worse. Money and guns give you dominance and power. Violence solves problems (no blowblack, no real consequences). Diplomacy has little to no value. Empathy is for sissies. Shortcuts ftw. It's not about how you play the game. Winning is all that matters. Points! High scores! The opposition is one dimensionally evil, they are dumb and they are inferior. Civility is weakness. Females are sex objects. Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like Lara? Being and behaving in an intelligent manner is lame. Getting drunk, high or stoned is cool. Turning your brain off and learning to enjoy stupid tv/games/films is good. Get a Roku. Debate is another word for a yelling match where the last man standing wins. Torture gets results. You're not stupid, everyone else is. Stupid only counts if you're broke and powerless. If you're as unsophisticated and stupid as the bum sitting the in the gutter but you have a fat bank account, you are winning. Vice is exciting. Virtue is for idealistic morons who don't understand how the real world works. Etc, etc, etc.
The games industry will never have anything to fear reguarding the "violent games cause kids to snap" argument. It's one of those arguments that will channel us all down a pointless dead-end series of conversations. Go us.
Much of the media we consume, much of the media we make will not result in the betterment of humanity nor the world we live. That's just a fact. Indeed it has helped us all become masters of hypocrisy. Hey brother and sister, consume my mind shaping garbage but if you forget to check in with the personal responsibility region of your brain (you know, that region we were all born with) and you end up ignorant, saddled with vices, mental health issues, etc... well that's on YOU.
BLAME YOURSELF AND YOUR PARENTS because that is who I will be blaming. I had nothing to do with it. Our marketing department didn't hold a gun to your head making you buy our product even though we denied that it would cause you any harm whatsoever and even though we fought tooth and nail against legislation that would force us to label it as such. (Although if we have to, we'll settle for PG-13, R, M for Mature because they don't adequately describe the depths of the harm and the ratings board will just tally up tits and swear words which are heavily discounted because we've all seen and heard them anyway!!! WHeeeeee!) We just wanted to give you enjoyment and this is how you repaid us? Now excuse us while we brush our teeth without gazing at our own reflections in the mirror.
Alas, if only we had all eaten from a tree of knowledge of good and evil and we magically understood in the deepest sense, what made good beneficial and evil destructive. No joy. We have to teach each other.
Does free will and or personal responsibility remain intact and uninfluenced and unbiased throughout the life of the individual? Can either of these things be influenced by parents, peers, teachers, media, culture, society?
If so, does this not denote a multi-shared responsibility? If not, why not? In other words, are we or are we not our brothers' and sisters' keepers?
Industry representatives: "Video games don't cause this behavior. Parents and other media do."
Government: "Isn't Video games other media?"
Representatives: "Yeah, but we're exempt from it. Go bother the other media. They're more guilty."
Government: "We already do and are. We're adding you guys now. Congratulations, you're now considered more important than toys."
Representatives: "No! They are more guilty! Leave us alone! We just want to be a niche market who appeals to everyone but doesn't accept any of the social responsibilities!"
Double standards, double standards. Video game companies like Activision goes after the easiest money and the quickest emotion to appeal to: violence. It's direct, it's brutal, and is one of our primal instincts. Unfortunately, they care only for the short term gains, and don't realize the consequences of feeding on an emotion that influences outside violent behavior. Broken controllers, broken televisions, and essentially greater stress, something video games are suppose to "relieve."
Football has a lot of hitting. But rules are in place to show to everyone that you are penalized for your actions. Hockey has a lot more fighting. Once again, rules are there to penalize foul play. These rules are implanted to discourage this action and acts as a social lesson that violent or destructive behaviors are not good. Then in comes video games.
+1 for shooting down that guy. +100 for a kill streak. Then enters visuals, and sound effects meant to elicit good feelings that what you did was a good thing. No rules saying "shooting everyone is wrong. Go all out." It filters into the growing child's head. This isn't about parents anymore. One way or another, kids are still getting access to these games. So instead of addressing this issue professionally, the game industry instead says it's not their fault and continues to not take responsibility for their actions.
Stop defending the game industry you know and love, and start realizing its flaws.
Im not for government censorship at all, I'm for human decency.
What we all do matters.
I disagree that stuff like this is actually caused by on screen violence. It's more like it is caused by failure and (sometimes perceived) unfairness. Monopoly or it's video game analogue Mario Party are notorious for pissing all the participants off.
I'm not saying violence has no effect, but if it does it isn't immediate. The whole point about conditioning kids has some merit though. Maybe age rating should take stuff like that into account?
Society expectations are good at leveraging that problem, so are comparisons with other people's lives, and so are the act of escaping into a virtual world where you can experience contrasting first-hand simulations of the perceived "happy life". Especially when all good life lessons are intentionally and pamper-y cut away from these, from when games used to be first-hand versions of proverbs as "fall seven times, stand up eight".
Character progression, player-centered universe, positive reinforcement, extrinsic rewards, global hero status. If there's a real connection between suicide-types/mass-shooters and video games, it's that they were already trying to escape life in the first place.
The global idea that one can only be happy being richer and better than everybody else and being praised all the time and getting all the prettiest mates and the most expensive car and the biggest house is a possible influential reason on a fair amount of depression and suicide cases, of which mass shootings are a small, attention-seeking share of.
Sure guns leverage the consequences, give a suicide-type a gun and he might take other people with him, sure. Again, blaming "violence" as a cause instead of seeing it as the consequence it is, is already all the way into the wrong direction.