EA boss: videogames don't cause violence, but we have to sol

[Metalrodent 23]

I'm amazed - EA saying something sensible and well thought out.
But seriously, this is a good attitude, we need to teach people that videogames dont kill people, nor do they cause it them to do so.

[Thos. 32]

"The point is, the direct studies that have been done - hundreds of millions of dollars of research that has been done - has been unable to find a linkage because there isn't one."

What an idiot, he should try using Google. Most studies show there is a link of some kind. This one took me 15 seconds to find:

Violent video games make teenagers more aggressive, study finds:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/v ... finds.html

[lawsond28 29]

This topic is becoming a little tiresome, and no doubt the same old cliches are soon going to be appearing in this discussion thread. 'Humans have been doing unspeakable things to humans long before the invention of videogames...' yada yada yada.
Here's how I see it, I have a tendency to break things down in this way.
Nice, non violent person + Violent videogames = Good (violence far less likely to ensue). e.g. Me (and you, I hope)
Nasty, violent person + Violent videogames = Bad (violence far more likely to ensue). e.g. Adam Lanza
The only factor that has changed in these incredibly simplistic equations is the nature of person playing the games.
The games themselves are not the cause of the problem. It's not rocket surgery.
Throw in 'guns' or 'no guns' into the above equation and the picture becomes even clearer. You can do the maths.
Oh look, I used some cliches.

[SilentDark 27]

But is a nasty violent person less likely to be violent without access to violent videogames?

Anybody who knows me knows I'm about as agressive as a kitten who has just woken up from a nap but there are times when things get me down to such a degree that a massive burst of anger and destruction seems like the only answer.

Then I play a videogame, after hacking up several hundred people on Samurai Warriors, or cutting up some idiot in a gimp suit on Soul Calibur or just pummeling someone on Street Fighter I feel much better. Videogames provide a healthy outlet for agression.

It's telling that most people who go on these killing sprees tend to be disturbed individuals or people who are bullied or ostracised by their piers. What we need is not a scapegoat but for the people resposible for these children's wellbeing (Parents/guardians, teachers etc.) to actually take notice of these people and give them the help they need before they snap and do something tragic and stupid.

[lawsond28 29]

But is a nasty violent person less likely to be violent without access to violent videogames?

That's an easy one. Just take 'Violent videogames' out of the equations altogether.

Nice, non violent person = Good (violence far less likely to ensue)
Nasty, violent person = Bad (violence far more likely to ensue)

A nasty, violent person is still more likley to be violent than someone who...erm...isn't.

[Elwood212 14]

We all know video games don't cause violence. Anyone who says they do needs a history lesson. Humanity has unfortunately alway had a violent side. If video games are the cause of it now, what was the cause of it 100 years ago. Playing cards?? EA has our support on this issue.

[Thos. 32]

We all know video games don't cause violence. Anyone who says they do needs a history lesson. Humanity has unfortunately alway had a violent side. If video games are the cause of it now, what was the cause of it 100 years ago. Playing cards?? EA has our support on this issue.

The comments on this site can be entertaining, because unlike places like YouTube where the comments are pure stupidity, there are people here who seem to think they are intelligent. In terms of ignorance, this comment reaches a new level of comedy.

[FishyGinger 50]

The comments on this site can be entertaining, because unlike places like YouTube where the comments are pure stupidity, there are people here who seem to think they are intelligent. In terms of ignorance, this comment reaches a new level of comedy.

Playing Tetris does lead to violent massacres then?

[Thos. 32]

The comments on this site can be entertaining, because unlike places like YouTube where the comments are pure stupidity, there are people here who seem to think they are intelligent. In terms of ignorance, this comment reaches a new level of comedy.

Playing Tetris does lead to violent massacres then?

Yes, well done, that was EXACTLY my point. I was referring to this comment, slightly re-written to highlight the level of stupidity, for anyone who can't detect the minor flaw in his argument:

"We all know cigarettes don't cause cancer. Anyone who says they do needs a history lesson. Humanity has unfortunately alway (sic) suffered from cancer. If cigarettes are the cause of it now, what was the cause of it 100 years ago. A glass of water?? The tobacco industry has our support on this issue."

[Bezza89 58]

Cause and contribute are different things entirely. And he's right, technically in his argument, we've had violence long before videogames and therefore they are not the cause, they contribute certainly. Also, cigarettes too don't cause cancer - they contribute though. If we're getting pedantic, let's go fully anal.

He's not exactly using the 'I've played GTA for years and not killed anyone argument'. Those naive bass turds annoy me, though they provide humour to the otherwise raging drivvle. Hmm, I don't think that's a word.

[FishyGinger 50]

I think you're looking to be argumentative for the sake of it. Which is normally a noble cause to which I am a practitioner but only if I find it amusing. I think the point he/she or it was making is as a direct result of playing games a person with no mental conditions has decided to go on a killing spree.

I'd imagine the number of lung cancer cases has risen quite a bit since smoking started. I'd imagine the number of murders since games came out hasn't.

[Bezza89 58]

I think the point he/she or it was making is as a direct result of playing games a person with no mental conditions has decided to go on a killing spree.

I don't think anyone is making that point, that's a silly point to make. Who are you saying is argumentative though, I hope it's not me, I'm just trying to tell thos that elmwoods argument is technically correct. I don't mean to come across that way if I did.

But mr fish, the number of murders will probably have gone up - but that doesn't mean it is down to videogames probably more due to population increase and financial recessions. And as many people smoke without getting cancer you can't say it's the cause, but it definitely contributes. That's the only point here.

[Thos. 32]

I'm just trying to tell thos that elmwoods argument is technically correct.

Actually you'll find he's, to put a rough value on it, about 100% incorrect.

"There was violence before games. Therefore games don't cause violence."

That is literally the stupidest thing I've read this year.

For what it's worth my belief, which I am very open to changing based on actual scientific evidence, is this:

Aggressive games cause aggressive behaviour in kids. A single violent act can have many causes. When it comes to ultra-violent acts like shootings, the effect of games is negligible and insignificant compared to other far more influential factors. However for the occasional punch in the face or playground bundle, I would not be at all surprised if violent games were a contribution.

[FishyGinger 50]

I don't know what I was saying, blah what what what. No I wasn't calling you argumentative and he probably wasn't making any point, maybe I was.

When talking about numbers I'd always go percentage wise. But the smoking point I was trying to make was it has a very obvious link to cancer, there can't be much doubting that. There's little to link games to violent outbursts above say stubbing your toe or getting cut up by a mercedes driver.

[Bezza89 58]

"There was violence before games. Therefore games don't cause violence."

Aggressive games cause aggressive behaviour in kids. A single violent act can have many causes. When it comes to ultra-violent acts like shootings, the effect of games is negligible and insignificant compared to other far more influential factors. However for the occasional punch in the face or playground bundle, I would not be at all surprised if violent games were a contribution.

All I'm saying is cause is the wrong word, I agree video games contribute towards violence, much the same as films, television and the media, if it is shown we make a connection in our brains and you can't get rid of the exposure. However, saying they are the cause is wrong, you need proof to say that a person performed a violent act as a direct result of using a certain media before you can attribute it to that. It's all well and good saying you need proof that it doesn't, what about proof that it does.

But the smoking point I was trying to make was it has a very obvious link to cancer, there can't be much doubting that.

Most definitely a link, it increases the risks ten fold- but you can't just smoke a cigarette then boom, cancer. It takes other factors into consideration too, you need a mix of ingredients before it will develop. That's why scientists say in vague terms, they don't go out and out and say 'You're going to die from this cigar' (daily mail will say a cake), they say the cigar will increase the risk of death. Much the same as saying playing a game will increase the likelihood of bad behaviour, but it will not cause it.

And that was my point, apologies if I'm reinforcing it a bit too much.