PDA

View Full Version : Videogame violence



GeromeDoutrande
December 30 2012, 11:31:42 AM
Editorial article here:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/12/28/why-arent-we-discussing-videogame-violence/

Thought it might be worth thinking about.

Devec
December 30 2012, 05:11:56 PM
I read the article and wasn't really impressed. It claims to be wanting to open a discussion on the links between violence and video games but in the end all it does it put forward comes down to: "We want to know if there is an actual link between violence and video games as is being often claimed. Tune in for the next episode of excerpts out of my life in which I try to find the answer."

Although it is not bad discussion to throw up I think the methods with which he is trying to derive anything useful will not give significant results. Since all conclusions will be made purely from a personal perspective which is a severely limited scope when it comes to behavioural sciences.

The main question that I think needs to be answered is not if it causes violent behaviour but to what an extend. Because to say that a form of media does not have an influence on a person is to be naive. Though it should be clear that it is unlikely to cause a person to behave radically different.

If I may postulate I think that shooters have very little to add in actual aggression and more in self confidence. Most shooters are a form of empowerment fantasy, you are the hero, you shoot the rows of indistinguishable villains that line up and eventually you finish off the big bad. There will be little in terms of an emotional connection between you and the game. Much like a violent movie, the viewer will not walk out being unable to sleep at night. The themes are the same but because video games are a new media and a new form of interaction the same themes get scrutinized. Making them come across as silly or for some people apparently scary.

In both movie and game the violence is not the central theme. Most people will enjoy it for being swept up in the experience, where video games are just a more interactive medium. Video games will however give a richer experience because of being involved. But we have to keep in check that video games are often scripted experiences with only a limited amount of freedom. In the end they makes us feel good, capable even.

There are some studies floating about that I have skimmed a bit. But most are of such a small scale or significance that they don't really add anything to the discussion. If we want answers to how much of an influence games really have on violent behaviour we need better and well funded studies. Studies that cross examine and take into account of what actually causes aggressiveness in human beings.

Of course we should not cease to hold public discussions about the subject matter, however I am afraid it will not lead to anything really conclusive.

TheManFromDelmonte
December 30 2012, 05:27:52 PM
I'm not sure whether "violence in games causes violence out of games" is interesting enough to discuss, the studies so far are pretty unanimous.
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/dec/30/games-first-person-shooter-vaughan-bell



The verdict from the now considerable body of scientific research is not that video games are a new and ominous threat to society but that anything in excess will cause us problems. The somewhat prosaic conclusion is that moderation is key – whether you're killing aliens, racing cars or trying to place oddly shaped blocks that fall from the sky.


The bigger issue for me is that I don't want to play violent games. Something like Dishonoured, or perhaps Deus Ex, is perfect. Violence is the failure state, something done to you when you screw up, never something you glory in.

And how violent are games like Civilisation? Remove the animations from the most recent and it's as violent as chess. The massed lasers of Supreme Commander are violent I guess, but not really in the same way as "Press X to torture" in codblops. Strategy games are all fundamentally about building not violence.

So for me the problem with so many violent games is that it means there's more games that I won't enjoy as much.

It is a little disturbing that game violence is now beyond hyperbole, as it's immune to the most effective form of criticism.

Rakshasa The Cat
December 31 2012, 02:57:34 PM
Looks like an article that will bring forth a lot of serious discussion.

Or not... This issue is so bias-inducing that only through numerous well-done studies can one start to figure this one out.

Smegs
January 2 2013, 06:36:48 PM
Not sure violent games induce violence by themselves, but maybe they give ideas or promote violence in those people who already have a propensity or fascination with it (i.e chavs and americans :D)

Reed Tiburon
January 2 2013, 07:12:44 PM
every single one of these ninnyish, handwringing articles ignores the fact that violence is hard-wired into humanity

what a pile of shit

SAI Peregrinus
January 2 2013, 07:22:54 PM
Possibilities, all of which must be accounted for by any study attempting to answer the questions at hand:

Violent media induces violence.
Violent media exacerbates preexisting violent tendencies.
Violent media provides an outlet for preexisting violent tendencies, reducing violence.
Violent media has no effect on violence.

Violent video games have a greater effect on violence than movies/violent sports.
Violent video games have a lesser effect on violence than movies/violent sports.
Violent video games have the same effect on violence as movies/violent sports.

People predisposed to violence buy more violent video games.
People predisposed to violence buy fewer violent video games.
People predisposed to violence buy the same number of violent video games as others.

Probably other things I've forgotten.

Smegs
January 2 2013, 09:21:32 PM
Either way, i don't think its the games to blame, more like the humanities inability to remove a 'odd' element from people at an early age (or at least delay its disclosure until said person is able to empathise with their victim, which may stop them). Improving parental responsibility and custodial sentences for offenders at a younger age may well help IF the rehabilitation element could be improved, but that is a different matter.

Allowing certain types of games concepts into the minds of emotionally and hormonally fucked up, and indeed, impressionable young people may not be the greatest idea though, but the effect will probably vary from each child to child.

... btw when i say 'odd' element i'm kinda thinking of the person being unable to differentiate between a game where you beat a whore half to death and steal her takings, and actually going out beating a whore half to death and stealing her takings ..... I place this kind of person in the same category as the retards who can't differentiate between a soap storyline and real life, as essentially they are the same thing. Except one often involves a baseball bat and the other a loose tongue to do damage. :/

Diicc Tater
January 4 2013, 01:57:01 PM
this is a clear case of "not this shit again"

Elvis is destroying the morals of the youth with his pelvic thrusts!

Play this so called Rock and Roll music backwards and you hear the messages of SATAN!

Back in the 80's the same hubbub was raised against "video violence". The splatter movies was the focus back then. Sweden censored the early Friday the 13th movies among others. Still no proof other than the fear of moralist scumbags without a clue.

Remember the fear mongering about heavy metal music? "
Reporter: "What does WASP stand for?"
Right wing christian politician: "We Are Satan's People. It's horrible!"

In the 90's it happened again, this time focus was on pen and paper role playing games and larping. Since this is even less accessible than audio and video media the understanding was even less and the assumptions even greater.
According to the newspapers in Sweden I spent weekend nights learning how to perform ritual murder and how to distance myself from guilt when killing innocent people, using swords, bows, guns, nail-bats....

It's the same thing all over again.
People being idiots.
Clueless idiots.

Melichor
January 5 2013, 02:58:57 PM
This is the same tired arguement that comes up everytime there is a tragedy. I remember politicians and media hurf blurfing about video games after columbine. Shit is never going to change because it's human nature to pass blame rather then have to make hard decisions or accept responsibility.

Sent via magic

GiDiYi
January 5 2013, 10:43:34 PM
I've played pretty much all kinds of games that have been done since 1984. I haven't used physical violence in any kind or form once since then (except while working as a paramedic, because sometimes you just have to). I think it's a silly discussion that pops up with pretty much every new kind of medium that gets people immersed into a story, be it books, movies or whatever.

But I almost punched my sister once because of video games. That bastard is just so much better than me in Mario Kart, it should be illegal.

Phrixus Zephyr
January 6 2013, 03:58:26 AM
Widespread violence in video games is a symptom of unhealthy attitudes to violence, not a cause. Acknowledging that there is a disproportionate amount of violence in media has to start with acknowledging that it's not ok. Something that is a good deal more difficult than it sounds, when it's organisations like the NRA who are calling for video games bans (even if it is wonderfully ironic).

KathDougans
January 7 2013, 11:20:12 AM
Has there been any fuss raised about the ability in say, the elder scrolls games, for players to use mods that allow children to be harmed/killed ?
Skyrim, for example, has invulnerable children npcs. I think there exist mods that alter that.

Unsure about Fallout 3 and similar, Fallout 1 did not have children, Fallout 2 did (depending on version, EU version did not, US did, iirc. They could be harmed, which made most npcs unfriendly or hostile).

There was the outcry about mods with the whole "hot coffee" thing a few years back, because of "nudity and sex in video games".

Is there likely to be one about mods that allow violence towards children ?

Joshua Foiritain
January 7 2013, 01:44:26 PM
And how violent are games like Civilisation? Remove the animations from the most recent and it's as violent as chess. The massed lasers of Supreme Commander are violent I guess, but not really in the same way as "Press X to torture" in codblops. Strategy games are all fundamentally about building not violence.
Is violence only in the actual graphics or also in your actions though? Conquering a city in civilization generally involves bombing it for several turns which would kill millions of its inhabitants.

Hel OWeen
January 7 2013, 01:50:15 PM
There was the outcry in the U.S. about mods with the whole "hot coffee" thing a few years back, because of "nudity and sex in video games".


Here, fixed that for you.

It's funny how the opinions are quite opposite:

- Europe: Nudity/Sex = erhm ... who cares?, Blood/Violence = BAN IT!
- U.S.A.: Blood/Violence = erhm ... who cares?, Nudity/Sex = BAN IT!

Lallante
January 7 2013, 02:11:48 PM
Tbh I think its only particularly harmful if its First/third person perspective.

cheeba
January 7 2013, 03:50:11 PM
Tbh I think its only particularly harmful if its First/third person perspective.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/026/futuramafry.jpg

TheManFromDelmonte
January 7 2013, 09:11:29 PM
Tbh I think its only particularly harmful if its First/third person perspective.

I'm surprised, I'd have thought you'd be one to read the studies. So far they show the violence is never harmful, unless you count being a bit worked up for 15 minutes afterwards as harm.

Straight Hustlin
January 7 2013, 09:39:52 PM
I've seen more violence erupt from one game of madden then all other games combined.

Kransthow
January 8 2013, 01:29:10 AM
Tbh I think its only particularly harmful if its First/third person perspective.
http://onebit.us/x/i/UHdmOuLf4g.jpg
WTB: extremely violent gory second person shooter.

Synapse
January 8 2013, 07:41:37 PM
Tbh I think its only particularly harmful if its First/third person perspective.
http://onebit.us/x/i/UHdmOuLf4g.jpg
WTB: extremely violent gory second person shooter.

"You are likely to be eaten by a Grue."

JForce
January 10 2013, 03:27:16 AM
John Stewart:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/scapegoat-hunter---gun-control?xrs=share_copy

Xiang Jiao
January 10 2013, 10:21:47 PM
The way I hear it, the NIU shooter used to play a lot of Counter Strike in high school, so the media might be onto something. He also liked to listen to Queen, so gay rock stars are also clearly a problem. Why isn't Marilyn Manson banned yet? I'm not sure if he's gay but he certainly wears a lot make up and prosthetic breasts.

The RPS link is laughable. It should be called, "Why Are We Still Discussing Videogame Violence?" because every time a gun crime happens, at least five journalists have to bring it up again. Also, video games are now protected by the 1st Amendment and considered protected speech so you can delight in making a game where you play various constituents of Congress raping young school girls on trains (a la Japanese rape fantasy porn) and the Constitution safe guards your right to publish it. Ain't this country beautiful?

Kransthow
January 11 2013, 08:27:14 PM
The way I hear it, the NIU shooter used to play a lot of Counter Strike in high school, so the media might be onto something. He also liked to listen to Queen, so gay rock stars are also clearly a problem. Why isn't Marilyn Manson banned yet? I'm not sure if he's gay but he certainly wears a lot make up and prosthetic breasts.

The RPS link is laughable. It should be called, "Why Are We Still Discussing Videogame Violence?" because every time a gun crime happens, at least five journalists have to bring it up again. Also, video games are now protected by the 1st Amendment and considered protected speech so you can delight in making a game where you play various constituents of Congress raping young school girls on trains (a la Japanese rape fantasy porn) and the Constitution safe guards your right to publish it. Ain't this country beautiful?
http://onebit.us/x/i/UD4mPsX7YX.jpg
GOD BLESS AMERICA

TheManFromDelmonte
February 1 2013, 05:53:38 PM
on the use of sponsored guns in games
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-01-shooters-how-video-games-fund-arms-manufacturers

It's a good read.

Cue1*
February 1 2013, 06:24:37 PM
on the use of sponsored guns in games
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-01-shooters-how-video-games-fund-arms-manufacturers

It's a good read.

It is, but Cybergun makes airsoft guns not BB guns. Yes, I'm butthurt about that.

Shaikar
February 1 2013, 06:31:45 PM
Violent games cause outbreaks of real world violence in the same way that Sim City causes outbreaks of real world urban planning.

TheManFromDelmonte
February 1 2013, 07:25:28 PM
on the use of sponsored guns in games
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-01-shooters-how-video-games-fund-arms-manufacturers

It's a good read.

It is, but Cybergun makes airsoft guns not BB guns. Yes, I'm butthurt about that.

The comment thread calls them bb gun patent trolls. I'm so confused, who do I believe.

Tarminic
February 4 2013, 02:57:56 PM
So has there actually been any scientifically-valid studies showing a causal relationship between violent videogames and real violence? As far as I know, there's been a link between violent videogames and "aggression", but that's essentially meaningless as any competitive activity does the same thing.

Lallante
February 4 2013, 04:28:04 PM
So has there actually been any scientifically-valid studies showing a causal relationship between violent videogames and real violence? As far as I know, there's been a link between violent videogames and "aggression", but that's essentially meaningless as any competitive activity does the same thing.

No

Tarminic
February 4 2013, 05:48:01 PM
So has there actually been any scientifically-valid studies showing a causal relationship between violent videogames and real violence? As far as I know, there's been a link between violent videogames and "aggression", but that's essentially meaningless as any competitive activity does the same thing.
No
Thought so, just checking.

Xiang Jiao
February 7 2013, 06:14:09 PM
Violent games cause outbreaks of real world violence in the same way that Sim City causes outbreaks of real world urban planning.

I fell out of my chair reading this.

Lallante
February 7 2013, 06:27:23 PM
Interesting question - is it legitimate to portray the player's character forcibly raping a character of the opposite gender in a videogame?

Xiang Jiao
February 7 2013, 07:09:11 PM
Interesting question - is it legitimate to portray the player's character forcibly raping a character of the opposite gender in a videogame?

I would assume so since you can film scenes like this for movies. Games are now protected under the 1st Amendment in the U.S. which also applies to television, film, print, etc. It would be somewhat hypocritical to decree that games can be as violently bloody as they want to be but draw the line at sexual assault in its various forms (prison rape, date rape, statutory rape).

Lallante
February 7 2013, 07:11:28 PM
Interesting question - is it legitimate to portray the player's character forcibly raping a character of the opposite gender in a videogame?

I would assume so since you can film scenes like this for movies. Games are now protected under the 1st Amendment in the U.S. which also applies to television, film, print, etc. It would be somewhat hypocritical to decree that games can be as violently bloody as they want to be but draw the line at sexual assault in its various forms (prison rape, date rape, statutory rape).

Theres quite a difference between the player doing something themselves and watching a third party do it. For a start, it tacitly legitimises it. See: COD Airport massacre controversy.

KathDougans
February 7 2013, 07:14:39 PM
Do you mean the player being an active participant ? the player is fully in control of their character's action ?

Or, do you mean something like a cut-scene, or other pre-programmed series of actions, where the players character is depicted, but the player is not actively controlling the character at the time ?

Pacefalm
February 7 2013, 07:16:53 PM
Violent games cause outbreaks of real world violence in the same way that Sim City causes outbreaks of real world urban planning.

I fell out of my chair reading this.

"If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."

Xiang Jiao
February 7 2013, 09:04:40 PM
Interesting question - is it legitimate to portray the player's character forcibly raping a character of the opposite gender in a videogame?

I would assume so since you can film scenes like this for movies. Games are now protected under the 1st Amendment in the U.S. which also applies to television, film, print, etc. It would be somewhat hypocritical to decree that games can be as violently bloody as they want to be but draw the line at sexual assault in its various forms (prison rape, date rape, statutory rape).

Theres quite a difference between the player doing something themselves and watching a third party do it. For a start, it tacitly legitimises it. See: COD Airport massacre controversy.

I don't really see a difference in who is doing the raping or killing. Does it make it any better or worse if you are the one getting raped in the interactive prison sex experience? You can get shot or shoot other people in first person shooters. It's all violence. Watching rape scenes in movies surely makes me want to rape women. How could this line of reasoning get any more retarded?

Tarminic
February 7 2013, 11:45:54 PM
Depends a lot on what you mean by "legitimate". Would it be protected under the first amendment? I think so, though at some point obscenity laws might come into play. But I suspect that if that feature got any kind of press, a lot of stores would choose not to carry it and it would get a huge amount of negative press unless it was one stellar piece of storytelling.

Synapse
February 7 2013, 11:52:26 PM
Depends a lot on what you mean by "legitimate". Would it be protected under the first amendment? I think so, though at some point obscenity laws might come into play. But I suspect that if that feature got any kind of press, a lot of stores would choose not to carry it and it would get a huge amount of negative press unless it was one stellar piece of storytelling.

So in other words exactly the same way it does for other storytelling media. If you're going to creep the hell out of people you'd better have a fantastic point to make in doing it or else people will write you off or ignore you.

SAI Peregrinus
February 8 2013, 01:12:43 AM
Depends a lot on what you mean by "legitimate". Would it be protected under the first amendment? I think so, though at some point obscenity laws might come into play. But I suspect that if that feature got any kind of press, a lot of stores would choose not to carry it and it would get a huge amount of negative press unless it was one stellar piece of storytelling.

So in other words exactly the same way it does for other storytelling media. If you're going to creep the hell out of people you'd better have a fantastic point to make in doing it or else people will write you off or ignore you.

Yep. You can say pretty much what you want, but we don't have to listen to it.
"Lolita" is a great work of fiction, and one of the Classics because of it. Yet we still vilify people who write stories about having sex with minors, because they're pretty much never as good or as interesting as "Lolita." You either end up with a rather disgusting work of pornography or an overly moralizing pile of tripe, preaching a message nearly* everyone already agrees with. Creating a great story with a difficult message is very, very hard, and such stories are quite rare. When they do appear (in any medium, not just as books) they tend to have a wide-ranging cultural impact. People pretty much stopped naming their daughters "Lolita" after 1956 or so.
Gamers don't often go in for the speculative literary style storylines, or at least game companies don't tend to produce such things. It's too difficult to do correctly and far too risky.

*Catholics apparently being the prime counterexample.

Synapse
February 8 2013, 06:02:40 AM
More the opporsite. People who do speculative literary storylines don't go into games. There is no position for them in the games world. Only a handful of studios support writers and then often by accident.

SAI Peregrinus
February 8 2013, 08:46:14 AM
More the opporsite. People who do speculative literary storylines don't go into games. There is no position for them in the games world. Only a handful of studios support writers and then often by accident.

It goes both ways.

The Myst series had pretty interesting story/writing, and sold well for the time, but the later games didn't do very well. Too niche, not enough people interested in reading their game. Other studios see that and don't want to make a speculative story game, and the writers who might think of going into games see that and don't want to go into games.

Lallante
February 8 2013, 02:24:07 PM
Depends a lot on what you mean by "legitimate". Would it be protected under the first amendment? I think so, though at some point obscenity laws might come into play. But I suspect that if that feature got any kind of press, a lot of stores would choose not to carry it and it would get a huge amount of negative press unless it was one stellar piece of storytelling.

So in other words exactly the same way it does for other storytelling media. If you're going to creep the hell out of people you'd better have a fantastic point to make in doing it or else people will write you off or ignore you.

ITs just kinda weird how that doesnt get applied to mass murder

Tarminic
February 8 2013, 02:50:59 PM
Depends a lot on what you mean by "legitimate". Would it be protected under the first amendment? I think so, though at some point obscenity laws might come into play. But I suspect that if that feature got any kind of press, a lot of stores would choose not to carry it and it would get a huge amount of negative press unless it was one stellar piece of storytelling.

So in other words exactly the same way it does for other storytelling media. If you're going to creep the hell out of people you'd better have a fantastic point to make in doing it or else people will write you off or ignore you.

ITs just kinda weird how that doesnt get applied to mass murder
I think it reflects our views as a society about sex and violence.

The prevailing opinion is that war and the violence that goes along with it can be necessary and justified. But it's almost impossible to justify sexual violence as necessary or useful. The irony is that rape has been recently used as a weapon of war to demoralize civilian populations.

Cool09
February 8 2013, 04:01:27 PM
Depends a lot on what you mean by "legitimate". Would it be protected under the first amendment? I think so, though at some point obscenity laws might come into play. But I suspect that if that feature got any kind of press, a lot of stores would choose not to carry it and it would get a huge amount of negative press unless it was one stellar piece of storytelling.

So in other words exactly the same way it does for other storytelling media. If you're going to creep the hell out of people you'd better have a fantastic point to make in doing it or else people will write you off or ignore you.

ITs just kinda weird how that doesnt get applied to mass murder
I think it reflects our views as a society about sex and violence.

The prevailing opinion is that war and the violence that goes along with it can be necessary and justified. But it's almost impossible to justify sexual violence as necessary or useful. The irony is that rape has always been used as a weapon of war to demoralize civilian populations.

fyp

SAI Peregrinus
February 8 2013, 10:40:08 PM
Look at movies: The bloodiest, most violent war films are rated R. Porn is NC-17.
Sex is dirty, love is for pussies, real 'Mericans make things explode!

Ophichius
February 9 2013, 08:02:49 AM
Depends a lot on what you mean by "legitimate". Would it be protected under the first amendment? I think so, though at some point obscenity laws might come into play. But I suspect that if that feature got any kind of press, a lot of stores would choose not to carry it and it would get a huge amount of negative press unless it was one stellar piece of storytelling.

So in other words exactly the same way it does for other storytelling media. If you're going to creep the hell out of people you'd better have a fantastic point to make in doing it or else people will write you off or ignore you.

ITs just kinda weird how that doesnt get applied to mass murder

Genocide, terrorism, mass murder and traffic violations actually.

Look at Mass Effect (the first one, rest were rubbish). You can kill off an entire species, rack up a bodycount in the thousands, punch reporters while wearing power armor, threaten to kill or maim pretty much anyone who stands in your way. And what was all the fuss in the media about? Blue-skinned space bisexuals.

Priorities folks.

Mind you, part of why killing in videogames is largely ignored is that it's a genre convention that the industry is unwilling to grow out of. AI development is utterly stagnant, usually nothing more than a simple RNG-driven decision loop and A* pathing, plus some -incredibly basic- and combat-focused decision stat tracking (morale essentially), and everyone and everything fights to the death.

If enemies surrendered or fled, made smart decisions on engaging in the first place, and actually acted like their lives meant something beyond being random encounter #502892 then we might see violent killing in videogames declining. Not because of any sort of moral imperative, but because it's fucking unrealistic and frankly stupid. Unfortunately, right now we're at a place where violence and death in videogames is an accepted part of the narrative, for the fundamental reason that it's easy to program, easy to tweak, and easy to set up a simple skinner box with. Kill this dude, get stuff that lets you kill dudes better, kill the next dude, rinse, repeat.

Contrasting this, a game where violence is difficult, and nonlinear solutions are more highly valued would be something like Thief or (depending on how you play it) Dishonored. More of the dopamine reward in those games comes from sneaking around, bypassing and infiltrating, learning about the world that the writers have created from notes and eavesdropping. It's an exploratory game more than a combative game. Enemies, such as they are, are almost always elements in a puzzle, meant to be bypassed or manipulated, not slaughtered wholesale. (Although even a 'pacifist' run of Dishonored will end with you choking several hundred guards unconscious and leaving them in dumpsters.). Designing those sorts of games takes more effort, more talent, more creativity, and more time than cranking out call of modern dutyfare XVI26.

Treading the middle ground would be Deus Ex. A game where you can complete the whole game without killing anyone, or you can murder goddamn near everyone you meet. Unfortunately, while it offers the option to be a sociopathic cyborg, the writers never really examine just how horrifying that would be. They passed up a wonderful opportunity to examine questions of morality, justice, and what ends justify the means. To some extent that's a limitation of development time, as fully pathing out and writing every option between 'complete pacifist' and 'genocidal war machine' would take a long time, and require some very sophisticated design to avoid feeling either railroaded or arbitrary (you have > 50 genocide points, now the dialog will treat you like a mass-murdering homicidal maniac!)

So...I guess long answer short: Violence in videogames is expected by pretty much everyone, so it's not considered to be anomalous, and therefor not shocking. It's ubiquitous because game development as an art form is still in shambles, and as an industry isn't much better, the majority of shops are churning out cheap crap instead of displays of real craftsmanship and skill, and violence is cheap and easy to simulate.

-O

SAI Peregrinus
February 9 2013, 10:17:51 AM
Videogames largely occupy the same slot in entertainment as action movies. Well, discounting farmville, puzzle games, and the like. So it's not really surprising that action video games are about as socially redeeming as action movies. Consider how many non-violent summer blockbusters you have seen recently. It's easier to tell a non-violent story in a movie than it is in a game, and it's easier to sell a violent game or movie to the American public than a non-violent one. And lest you think that violence in media is a new thing I should point to Macbeth. And Beowulf. And the Aeneid. And the Odyssey, the Iliad, and all the way back to Gilgamesh, the oldest known story. Violence is exciting, it's exhilarating, and as much as we may want to rise above it it's very, very human.

Synapse
February 9 2013, 10:48:37 AM
...and yet most of my time is spent in Minecraft and Viva Piniata.

I guess I did just recently install SpaceMarine and #3 in my time these days is mechwarrior...

Pacefalm
February 9 2013, 10:56:02 AM
If you want proof that humans are fascinated by violence you only need to look at the roman colloseum. I dont think we have changed much in those ~2000 years.

GeromeDoutrande
February 14 2013, 11:11:30 AM
Polygon reports news of a study mentioned in the New York Times that demonstrates that the rise in sales of violent videogames does not cause a spike in the rates of violent youth crime.

- http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/02/14/study-finds-violent-games-reduce-violence-hmmmm/

Alistair
February 14 2013, 02:07:00 PM
If you want proof that humans are fascinated by violence you only need to look at the roman colloseum. I dont think we have changed much in those ~2000 years.

Or 10,000 years of human history. We are an exceptionally violent species. It's a fantasy to believe that we "modern" men have somehow moved past those basic instincts.

At least today we have outlets (i.e. fantasy, movies, books, games, etc) for them that don't involve invading your neighbors townhouse/flat, enslaving his girlfriend, capturing his Honda, and burning him at the Stake as a Heretic.....usually.