On the subject of violent video games...

I can't agree with this. Violence is a natural thing that has always been and will continue to be useful in certain circumstances, and I think that needs to be recognized. I don't think it does anyone any favors to attempt to repress it altogether, or breed it out, or condemn it as it inherently "bad". Also, people exist who have more of a tendency to lean towards violence, for whatever reason, whether we think they should or not, and for the sake of stability, those tendencies need safe outlets.

edited 8th Mar '13 11:43:36 PM by Robotnik

In certain limited circumstances. And these circumstances call for cool, dispassionate and careful thinking, not for bloodlust and mindless aggression. The last kind of people that I would like to join an army are the ones who think that it would be awesome to shoot people (and as far as I know, that is also the last kind of people whom professional soldiers would want to join the military: having a Leeroy Jenkins on your side is not a good thing.).

Ideally, violence should be seen as an extremely distasteful — although, sadly, occasionally necessary — thing; not as something cool to fantasize about and to play-act, no more than one fantasizes about filtering sewage.

I am not advocating banning violent media. That would do the opposite of what I want, because it would make violence into something even more forbidden and "cool". What I am saying is that I would like our media to celebrate more non-violent forms of conflict resolution, as well as non-violent scenarios.

edited 8th Mar '13 1:13:33 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I've been trying to find studies showing a worldwide increase or decrease in violence, but I haven't found much that clearly explains a trend in the behavior. One essay suggests that violence throughout the world sharply declined during the 17th century and rose again in the early 21st century. Another essay argues that violence increases during a major technological revolution and later decreases during an intellectual flourishing or diaspora. Studying violence from a historical standpoint is surprisingly complex, and many assumptions we make about violence in the past are often exaggerations based on popular imagination. The Wild West, for example, wasn't quite as violent as movies and television have led us to believe, and many so-called gunslingers were actually terrible shots. Wyatt Earp freely admitted to heavily embellishing his experiences with outlaws, as many lawmen kind of had to dress up their stories because they weren't paid very well and biographies like that sold much better.

Where I take issue is how fiction writers use violence as a cheap form of character development, or rather as a substitute for character development. We've talked about this in the Writer's Block threads. Violent video games often do a poor job of capturing the psychology behind violent behavior, which itself is linked to a plethora of poor storytelling in the medium. And when I say "plethora", I actually mean the correct definition, which is "overabundance". This is probably the basis for Truffaut Was Right and other tropes. When I play God of War, Modern Warfare 3 or something similar, I have a hard time buying into the whole "revenge is bad" message chiefly because I've been blasting, hacking, and incinerating the everlasting hell out of countless enemy NP Cs for several hours, and I've frankly been enjoying it the majority of the time. We do have some games such as Metal Gear Solid, Haze and Spec Ops: The Line that at least demonstrate some self-awareness of the perils of violence, but the gaming industry as a whole continues to demonstrate a tellingly weak grasp of the cultural, political, and emotional impact of using violence as a form of conflict resolution.

edited 8th Mar '13 2:50:50 PM by Aprilla

Steven Pinker says that violence has decreased, overall. I have not read the book myself yet, but I heard that it is quite good.

Still, it could stand to decrease even more.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I would like to see more variety and maturity in the video game industry. I would very much like to see it reach the options we have in other media such as film.

For every Schindler's List we can have a The Expendables. The problem with mainstream western gaming is we have too much of the latter with very few people even attemptng to shoot for the former.

But again, this is where consumer responsibility comes in at least in part. People are demanding more variety and more levels of quality, hence the rise of video game analysis and the indie circuit. So we are moving in the direction to expand options and material.

This also requires people to educate themselves about what options are available and where to get what they want.

I have had some people tell me a parent can't control their children's influences, and that is true. But parents aren't as helpless as they make themselves out to be.

1) don't use the TV and video game console as a babysitter.

2) be aware over what your kids are watching/playing/into. In a world of smart phones and internet, there is no reason why you can't look up a brief synopsis of whatever piece of media your kid is begging for. Ask what they are into. Not only are you bonding, you are educating yourself on how to guide them. Hell, ask the video game clerk about the game. Care enough to look at the rating.

3) I get some parents work a lot, but there are still ways to be envolved. Almost every school district in America allows for teachers to have school emails. Talk to the baby sitter. Exchanging notes on the fridge between shifts. Do something.

4) you chose to be a parent. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes you get to be the bad guy who won't let them play that game or go hang out with that one kid. But that's your job. You are not your kid's friend nor are they your pet. I love to make my son smile and play with him. But I also want to see him be a successful, well adjusted and healthy adult.

The long term happiness and stability of my kid is worth the short term fustrations. Most people now don't look at the long term at all, but it's even more problematic when those people are parents.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

I've known a couple parents who said they couldn't help what their kids did and that they didn't have time to look into what their kids were playing.

They lived out in the middle of nowhere, so the kids couldn't just go to the store whenever they wanted, and if they work so much they can't spend time with their kids (and it wasn't a money issue. The dad made enough money that the mom didn't have to work if she didn't want to) they should probably figure something else out. Any suggestions (not just from me, I don't have kids so I could understand not listening much to me) were just ignored as, "but we can't possibly change our kids lives like that! It would scar them".

They just seemed to have kids because their families expected it. They weren't awful parents, just neglectful and too wrapped up in their own lives.

Not Three Laws compliant.

Violence isn't inherently "bad" or "distasteful" or comparable to sewage, and, frankly, I don't want it to be seen as such, ever. I don't have a problem with the idea of media featuring more non-violent conflict solutions or scenarios, but I do have a problem with going 100% in the opposite direction and demonizing it completely.

edited 8th Mar '13 3:50:35 PM by Robotnik

Usually when you make a claim like that, you should provide reasoning. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'd like to hear your reasons.

Edit: Thanks. I kinda agree. However, that would require subtle and nuance from Hollywood, which not only cuts into their international market (not being racist, generally simpler stories are easier to translate across cultural and language barriers than complex) it would cut into their home market.

edited 8th Mar '13 4:11:40 PM by DrTentacles

I think that aggression (and tendencies toward violence) is ingrained in all animals, and denying it a safe outlet in video games or films (when real life is obviously out of the question) is disingenuous, if not outright harmful, especially when there don't seem to be any negative consequences; anyone who seriously thinks that violence is a good knee-jerk reaction in reality past early childhood will quickly find themselves in a cell or a body bag anyway. Ditto for war is fun.

edited 8th Mar '13 4:01:05 PM by Robotnik

I agree with the first part, however, I think the number of wars, and just human history in general has shown the second isn't true. I'm just unsure of how much media is to blame. I can't deny that culture has a massive effect on how people act, and that media shapes (and is shaped by culture). I'm just questioning how effect it would be.

Still, more complexity would be nice.

I... want to say that violent crimes in general have been decreasing since the '80s, with only a slight uptick in the last year or so. If anything, that suggests that increasingly violent media is actually helping, however there are so many other factors (greater education, lower poverty, etc) that it would be disingenuous to suggest that video games or movies are the cause. Correlation and causation and such.

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

I am thinking that Caros is talking bout the lethal or permanently damaging violence as opposed to the violence that you're forced to adopt in defending yourself or others.

I think what some people here are saying is violence is a necessary evil but we don't want to make it seem so glamorous that it's as fun as playing baseball. Am I right on this?

Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.

As far as games in particular go, part of the reason for the violence is that it's an easy way to have conflict and strategy. An enemy to kill is a challenge to overcome, and the challenge is the main point of having a game in the first place.

Furthermore, regardless of horrified grandparents talking about 'those games with all the blood and death', I think most actual players are in fact doing it for the challenge and not for the gore. It doesn't seem so much that people crave violence, but that we want to have fun and violent games are an easy way to supply fun. This is reflected in the gameplay structure, which typically focuses on achievement (finishing the level, or winning the round) rather than on repetitively slaughtering NP Cs for no further gain. We feel satisfied to see the terrorist get blown up not so much because it's gory, but because it reflects an accomplishment (he shot me the last five times I tried this level, but now I beat him!). A game full of 'enemies' who just stand around doing nothing while you mow them down gets boring really quickly, and in such circumstances we usually respond by inventing new achievements for ourselves; how many can I kill with one grenade, can I kill them so that their bodies spell 'LOL' on the ground, etc.

One could argue that the games reinforce the idea that killing people in real life is also an achievement. I don't think that's true either. Sure, we all want to be the badass guy who could beat up an entire Al Qaeda compound with nothing but a crowbar. But we don't actually carry that out, and the vast majority of actual murderers don't seem to act for this reason (it's usually love, money, or safety), and the few that do usually have other psychological problems. I have not heard of many, if any, courts determining that a murderer did it 'to improve his ratio'.

Join my forum game!

The games that are overly focused on gore don't tend to sell that great, right? At least not anymore. That Splatterhouse remake that came out a while back wasn't exactly flying off the shelves and Mortal Kombat is IIRC pretty much dead.

Then you get sleeper hits like Catherine where I really don't want to know what these moral guardians would think of it but they wouldn't be able to attack it for enabling violence.

edited 8th Mar '13 6:59:37 PM by Zendervai

Not Three Laws compliant.

The thing with that is that they also tend not to be very good games. Mortal Kombat was more or less dead because of a series of terrible games starting with Deadly Alliance and ending with Armageddon— the reboot's actually decent. Contrast that with say, Ninja Gaiden, which I -think- still sells well, despite the fact that you basically play the world's messiest interior redesigner.

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

Don't you mean, "This is probably the basis for 'Do Not Do This Cool Thing' and other tropes"?

Meh. I usually point out that the same people who are so appalled at violent video games are usually the same ones who watch even gorier war movies every other night. It's not always the case, but in America it's a safer bet than it should be.

I think they just hear the interactive component and focus on that. I'd love to see one of these pundits try to explain how this◊ or this◊ teaches people how to kill or use a gun.

Not Three Laws compliant.

I disagree. While violence may sometimes be necessary — for example, in self-defense — it is always distasteful. I mean, all right, if someone is attacking you with an axe, you cannot escape safely, and you have a gun then you have no option but to shoot them; but that's not awesome, it's tragic. You are being forced to end the life of a fellow human being — of someone with hopes and thoughts and loved ones — in order to protect yours.

That's definitely something that should not be celebrated.

Now, as I said, I don't want violent video games or other media to be banned: not only it would be a violation of human freedoms, but it would cause violence to be even more fetishized. But still, the fact that many of us (me included) find it entertaining to play-act the killing of fictional humans means that we, as a species, still have much to learn.

But there are plenty of scenarios that would have just as much challenge, and no gore at all. I'm not saying that people (again, me included: I am definitely not a being of Incorruptible Pure Pureness) play violent video games and watch violent media only because they find gore and violence exciting; but it has to be a factor.

edited 8th Mar '13 11:28:17 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

While I'd agree with that being the parents dropping the ball, I'd say it's less about letting the kid play the video game (though if they did let them, then they should monitor them at that age) and more about them not taking the time to teach their child proper etiquette.

(emphasis mine)
I agree 100% with that. I feel like violent media in general can be an outlet even for people who have violent urges and that it keeps them from actually committing such actions in real life, or even that it can just be an outlet for stress in general. Anecdotal evidence, but I can certainly attest to the fact that I've popped in GTA IV and just gone on a spree in the game on plenty of occasions when I'm pissed off or down in the dumps. 'Course, I don't know if that really just says something about me instead of the game...

For the record, there is definitely research that backs this up to some degree, or at least that violent media does not increase violent crime, though, admittedly, there's really only correlational findings, and there are some studies that support the opposite as well.

edited 8th Mar '13 11:29:09 PM by 0dd1

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

If you think killing someone who's attacking you with an axe is "tragic" or something to feel particularly sad about, then no offense, but we have a very fundamental conflict of values, and there's not really much point in debating this any further.

That's not even an argument for this thread.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

That too.

Well, what sort of attitude people should ideally have towards violence is very much related to what violent video games tell us about ourselves.

And I confirm, having to kill someone who is attacking you with an axe is tragic. That is a human being — a being whose mind is about as complex as yours, a being with hopes and fears and loves, someone who is your equal in dignity — and you are being forced to kill it like a rabid dog in order to preserve your own life. How is that not tragic? I am not saying that it is something that you should feel guilty about — in that scenario, you have no alternatives — I am saying that it is a sad and bad thing, not something cool and exciting.

Fantasizing about violence — even about violence in self-defense — is not something that should happen, ideally. The fact that it does means that we still have much to learn. As I said, the "ban violent media to reduce violence" idea is beyond stupid; but the fact that we still enjoy violence in media is not a good sign. It's a symptom that we still are nowhere as civilized as we should be.

edited 9th Mar '13 12:08:55 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.