

Video games don't create violence in society, they reflect it - zachinglis
http://www.polygon.com/2013/1/14/3875420/video-game-violence

======
nsxwolf
I've yet to see "Columbine: The Game". Most violent video games are war
themed, and since when did we find fighting in ostensibly just wars to be
objectionable? As a nation we troll high schools to get as many 17 and 18 year
olds as we can to fight wars for us and we think that's OK. Not seeing how
Call of Duty turns anyone into a killer.

All kids play video games. That means killer kids play the same games as non-
killer kids. What's that thing about correlation and causation again?

~~~
saraid216
> I've yet to see "Columbine: The Game".

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Columbine_Massacre_RPG>!

That exclamation point is part of the URL. -_-

~~~
anonymoushn
If anyone does try playing the game, be sure to kill everyone you can in the
school before going to the library. Otherwise you will be underlevelled when
you get to hell.

------
jug6ernaut
(sorry hijacking post a little)

I find it hard to take any argument against such things(video games, guns,
movies ect) seriously when these arguments taking place only happen when it is
politically advantageous for politicians.

If these arguments being made are valid then they should be made anyways.
These are not small issues, but issues that go down to the base of our
society. If they are not valid enough to be made on there own ground why
should i take them seriously when they are projected into the limelight by a
tragedy?

Note I am not saying that i am for or against any of these arguments just
stating that if they are valid then they should be able to be viewed in there
own context. Of course we have to take recent(any and all) events into account
but it must be done so with a clear head. Much like the current outrage
regarding Aaron Swartz, is it a tragedy, absolutely, but to go out instantly
and call for someones head is irresponsible and illogical.

Rash decisions lead to only more mistakes.

~~~
sdh
you can't change anything without critical mass. it usually takes a national
disaster or profound fear of something to mobilize support for popular change.
depending on your point of view, that's either a feature or fault of our
society.

------
brownbat
Violent crime has been declining since 1991, and we haven't had a homicide
rate so low as 2011 since 1963.*

I'm not sure violence in society and violence in media are really correlated,
certainly not violent video games.

Some might argue violent video games are providing an outlet, I don't know if
that's true either. Maybe we've just entered an age of distraction, and
Youtube is really effective at keeping criminals (or victims?) off the
streets, better than any after school basketball program.

* Wikipedia provides a table illustrating declining crime rates, compiled from US Bureau of Justice and FBI statistics. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crim...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time)

------
sp332
Hasn't violence in video games been going up as violent crime (in the US at
least) has been declining?

~~~
astrodust
Haven't box office revenues been going up even as people pirate movies? Facts
won't interfere with anyone's agenda.

------
neumann_alfred
I would be able to take this seriously for a second if it at least mentioned
the power trip side of it, or the greed of being addicted to collecting
virtual stuff. But it's all just so great and special... why, they even
mention "art" and AAA titles in one breath. I'm not sure if I should laugh or
puke, really.

 _The role of violence in storytelling is as old as human history, and it has
long served a purpose in conveying values of honesty, courage, confidence and
perseverance._

It also served a purpose of voyeurism and of Schadenfreude. Again, if you want
to fool anyone into thinking you're engaging in serious analysis and
reflection, you should at least address one or two of the huge elephants on
the couch.

/signed, someone who has been playing games since the late 80's and found this
article to be a bunch of tripe. Yes, they reflect our mediocre, pitiful state,
they don't create it. But mediocre and pitiful they are for the most part.
They are either about _being_ an asshole, or _having_ irrelevant stuff. In
that sense even Minecraft is crap.. and I played that, even SMP, so I'm not
dissing something I don't even know; it's just I also know art, and music, and
just sitting in the sun. I know books and stuff.

~~~
cbs
_why, they even mention "art" and AAA titles in one breath. I'm not sure if I
should laugh or puke, really._

Oh please, drop the pretentious attitude. High-budget entertainment isn't ever
going to be a stream of critical darlings and everyone know this, I do however
look forward to your explanation of exactly why Spec Ops: The Line is of no
artistic value.

~~~
neumann_alfred
_I do however look forward to your explanation of exactly why Spec Ops: The
Line is of no artistic value._

You can wait until you're blue in the face. However, if you let go of the
strawman for a sec, I'd happily explain to you why it's not art in my opinion.
Anything and everything has "artistic value", even the way the flower lady
turns around and smiles.

~~~
neumann_alfred
Of course, it's usually fruitless to define "art"... but I didn't mean to say
it has to be something extremely "deep" and personal. Just consider this: most
games "think" of the bits of art that are in them as "art assets". And in many
cases the music, the textures, the voiceovers; you could replace those with
something entirely different, or at least something generic, and the game
mechanics would still work exactly the same.

I mean, we are talking about games here - well, I am, the article kinda isn't
- not about "stories". Yes, games are accompanied by stories, they used to
have title screens and now have backdrops for the options menu, they had cover
art and now have thumbnails in the steam store, etc., there is an intro, an
outro, and while you play you also are exposed to lots of little artsy pieces.

Does singing while driving your car turn car driving into art? In the same way
I argue adding art to games doesn't automatically make them art, either. Which
doesn't mean you couldn't theoretically make art with your car, and sing while
you do it. But if you're just commuting, that ain't art (unless it's the
opening sequence of Office Space :P). And that's on the level of creativity
most AAA games are made.

Looking at the gameplay, they are more or less the same. What little art is in
them they borrowed from movies, which still do that part so much better I
really wish games could go back to actually being games, instead of just bad
kitsch. Then we could find out what we still don't know; if a _game_ \- the
mechanics, not how those mechanics are dressed up - can be art. We're still at
the stage were anything that makes you feel something, _anything_ , gets
wildly applauded, which seems kinda of sad. Instead of being honest and just
saying "hey, this one is not pure shit, which is a welcome change to the
usual", people get super emotional and attached. To me that's just Stockholm
Syndrome. I'm sure on this planet there is also a person who has the facebook
"like" thumbs up tattooed on their body, because it means so much to them.
Would it make that symbol art? Not for me. That would just make that person a
really sad one in my eyes.

Again, definitions vary, but I also wouldn't call anything that obsesses about
statistics, sales, and how to addict people to your product even more as
"art". As in, the exact same product I might consider art or not art depending
on why and how it was produced. I'm not even sure I'd allow anything produced
while wearing a tie _period_. Artists are rare, they're kinda the original
hackers if you think about it.. and just like everybody and their dog
considers themselves a hacker, so it is with art. That's fine, but so is being
a jaded critic.

Yes, violence can be used to tell a story about courage. But when it comes to
games, and even many movies, the stories about "courage"* are actually just a
pretext for violence.... duh! I doesn't take Albert Einstein to notice that,
either, so it's really hard for me to assume ignorance instead of malice here.
That crap hiding behind what precious few of truly great things humanity
created, just bah!

* I put that in quotes because it doesn't take courage to be shot at by 20000 people and not get hit once, even if the actor pants and acts all tense.. same goes for most games, where loosing, or not getting a hint what to click within 5 seconds of starting, might loose potential customers and therefore gets cut from the game, where every slightest challenge is after a checkpoint, unless it's a roguelike or bullet hell shooter. Courage, pah. That's just dreaming. Every game has a wiki dedicated to them and in general, most gaming is about trying to avoid challenge while getting to see the art assets.

People are min/maxing because that's the best you can do with this stuff. They
don't play games to grow as persons or see life from different angles; who the
fuck does the article author think they're kidding? Games are played to kill
time. I think it was Thoreau who said "as if you could kill time without
injuring eternity". I wasted a lot of time on games in my life, but I will not
waste even more by standing idly while such hideous crap as the article linked
here is spouted... I can at least take all that wasted time and turn it into
venom. I'm a former hardcore gamer warning casuals of the vampires that are
indeed lurking. Don't believe a word these assholes say, don't even bother to
pirate their products, and don't you dare paying for that cycle to continue.
Just look at them, point, laugh, and move on.

------
dimitar
There are violent video games everywhere where kids are wealthy enough to buy
them. While games are blamed everywhere some societies are more violent than
others. Why isn't any discussion about violent video games international?

Also, gun violence actually decreased in the US since the late 80s, before the
release of Wolfenstein and Doom so

------
Jailout2000
reflect*, Sir.

~~~
exodust
'Rerflect' might be a new word describing an unrealistic reflection of
reality. Where people sitting down are actually running around throwing
grenades at each other in a post-apocalyptic world with invisible walls. It's
rerality.

Modern violent games seem to be a way of playing out the worst possible
scenarios. Actually being in that situation with guns firing would be horrible
and scary. But we've made a competitive sport out of that which we try to
avoid as a society - violence and destruction. Must be in our genes.

Along with the virtual gun-lovers, the best(most absurd) irony in years, that
the gun lobby criticizes violent games, when most gun lobbyists would play the
hell out of them! Gun enthusiasts who play video games, would play first
person shooters without a doubt.

------
demian
What if there isn't causality, but something more systemic, a vicious circle,
a negative feedback loop?

------
donpark
This article is no more than a summary of consensus among game developers,
publishers, and media.

------
elviejo
It's called a positive feedback loop.

------
DrDreams
They don't just reflect it, they reflect it, distort it and magnify it.

Video games produce versions of the violence in society which are unrealistic,
in which everyone can get up off the floor after being shot by being reloaded
and start again.

Video games produces thousands of times as many violent events as in real
life.

The amount of resources (money and time devoted) in creating and playing video
games rivals the amount of time and energy people spend practicing at making
real life into a safe experience. Much more than a distraction, they are the
centerpiece, a devotion to delusional destruction.

~~~
nodata
_Video games produces thousands of times as many violent events as in real
life._

Extraordinary claims...

But seriously, back this up with some evidence.

Compare the amount of violence today with the amount of violence a century
ago. Oh yeah, that's also not citing any evidence.

~~~
pchristensen
I played video games from ages ~8-19, and I probably killed a few hundred
thousand animals, people, soldiers, knights, Nazis, medieval soldiers and
archers, spaceships, aliens, etc. Very few people in history can even claim
responsibility for that many deaths, let alone committing them. But millions
of people have played video games more than me.

~~~
Dove
If video game kills count, regular old make-believe kills should count too.
And I've never met a little boy who didn't have hundreds of _those_. It's not
as historically exceptional as you might think!

------
analog
The studies so far don't seem to have been conclusive either way. What we have
so far though should be enough to cause concern.

[http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/...](http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/whats-
the-psychological-effect-of-violent-video-games-on-children.html)

FWIW I personally enjoy first person shooters, but I don't see any great
benefit that comes from them.

~~~
bitwize
They help you think tactically. Things like use of cover, flanking the enemy,
etc.

The Marines used Doom to train recruits in basic tactics since the 90s.

Like any video game they entrain you to mentally follow a complex unfolding
scenario in real time given limited visual/auditory input.

I wouldn't recommend them for a kid, but for an adult or mature, responsible
teenager there are some cognitive benefits.

~~~
analog
So, like sport, but without the exercise?

Actually I agree with you about the mental side having some benefits, but I
just don't see any specific benefit from the violence. Like you say, any other
video game could provide the same.

~~~
bitwize
There's an upcoming game called Shootmania that is an explicitly nonviolent
FPS: guns fire bursts of light rather than bullets and slain characters sort
of "derezz" like in _Tron_ rather than bleed and gib.

So maybe the violence is an optional component of this sort of game after all.

