A gamers view on violence Thread

Stumbled today across this article on Gamasutra. It is a good article which I recommend to read especially by game developers although gamers should take a look at it too. In this article the writer talks about violence in video games but not in the ban-it-all fashion but in a more reasoning way taking a look at where things can lead us as well as why certain games are not the best thing to do. The article talks about the following:

- Violence today and in 2030 ( or simply the future ): technical possibilities, trends, when to use and when not
- "virtual murder" and "real murder": similarities, differences
- Industry ethics: why it's a problem to push the limits of what people still accept ethically
- Legality: why legal restrictions in the future could be unevitable
- Kids and adults: why adults are the bigger problems than kids

The article can be found here. It looks daunting large but 50% is made up of comments so it's a lot shorter.

Discussion Topic:
In general what is mentioned in the article. I have always been a player which prefers games where you can avoid violence since I belief in the creative aspect of the media form video games. I don't think that games by itself do harm people or make them psychotic but exposure to large amount of senseless violence can dull things down a bit. Not that movies and tv shows can not do the same. They face the same problem video games do but video games have a powerful property movies and tv shows lack and this is interactivity. I support his views that violence itself should not be banned from games but it should have a meaning. It should not be just for experience points or advancing to the next level to kill that many baddies. It should have consequences and only a last fallback. As he mentioned using death in the right dosis can have a lot of impact on a story but if used in large quantities it looses all the effect. Game developers should step away from the killing festivals and get back to games where such fatal and final events only occure in specific situations as then the entire game improves in quality.

It's up to you know. Your thoughts about the article?

I think this problem will fix itself. The reason we have so much violence in games is we've yet to master any other kind of interaction in any great depth. Without the AI to act human, any sane human being will easily tell the difference between a real person and a dumb AI, no matter how impressive the 3d model. If the AI has enough depth to make diplomacy or bluffing compelling, those options will naturally happen in games more and more.

Of course, Deathmatch is going to remain popular, but we manage to frag each other at LAN parties without feeling any sort of inclination to shoot each other in real life. So even if the AI you are fragging is self-aware and intelligent enough to hold a conversation with you, that's not going to change the basic fact that it's all pretend -you're still fragging the avatar, not killing the individual. As a bonus, maybe if we did have self-aware AI bots, I might get a better standard of conversation between rounds

Gibberstein wrote: The reason we have so much violence in games is we've yet to master any other kind of interaction in any great depth.

I like that line, it's spot on. Although by only doing what we can we won't improve in those areas. I guess this is what the article author meant but he didn't express it this way.

its only fps games violence is counted, kung fu and wow etc doesnt ever count

I think violence in video games is so prominent because it's a way of doing what you can't do, essentially, in reality (or rather I should say; doing what you shouldn't do). People play FPSs and RPGs mainly because they do what they can't in real life. It's "fun" to kill stuff as long as you aren't hurt and you can just restart if you die. In reality though, it is different, but many people who play these types of games are in-fact non-violent. People prefer fantasy over reality when it comes to certain fun, like killng stuff, shooting fireballs out of your hands, flying over roof-tops, etc.

I guess that's not the main point of the article writer. He talks especially about getting killing more realistic in games and what influences this can have. You are right that violence itself is is present at a lot of places but I think the problem stems from the desire of the game developers to make the act of killing more realistic to gather more customers. This in fact is a problem. If you need killing in a game that's one thing and depends on the game world but do you require it to be as realistic as possible?

Hell No! I like my simulated recreational violence as gratuitously unrealistic as possible! I want it to look like an explosion in the red paint warehouse

If you're going to indulge your primitive side you may as well indulge properly

Edited by: Gibberstein

I prefer violence in video games, I dont know but somehow it just relieves the stress I build up for a day and just want to release it on a game. Sure it doesn't effect me as I dont get pissed off or anything but I think parents should pay close attention to what their kids play or atleast have a better understand of their kids then just let them do whatever they want.

I think that one thing is being overlooked: even if a game is extremely realistic, it's still a game. If people can recognize that, then I believe we will be fine. It's when people fail to recognize that that things go wrong. Some people have already viewed games as combat simulators or as being tantamount to reality. We have seen the first in the Columbine kids, and the second in the recent freaks who have tried to kill people exactly like it is done in certain video games. I believe the real problem is that as video games become more realistic people may be more inclined to accept what happens in them as truth, if even subconsciously. Even then, however, there is no scientific proof that this is true.

I know, at least for me, if I were to play such a highly realistic video game as he describes (where it is actually like killing a real human), it would not affect me in any way similar to seeing a real human die.

And then one has to consider that they're not always doing the murdering. In RPGs, RTSs and a number of other genres, you are not always directly firing a gun and shooting someone. Even in a FPS, you often take control of a character, who is not the player, and has his own story. Often, this character also has a good reason to fight.

Edited by: Kyogreex

It's just a game. There is violence in most games around, virtual or real (just take football, and who don't like that? ) It's more of a fact in my opinion people just want to bash stuff they don't even know and or give a damn about. Though once you try it, you think differently. But it's human nature to bash everything without actually observing the evidence.

As for whether they turn into serial killers, that is untrue. Also you must take into account even if they were to try, half the stuff they see in video games can't be done in real life. So no ultimate assassinations by jumping from roof to roof, over rails and slipping out a hidden blade in your hand to slice someone's throat, that is just never going to happen because of the impossibility. No matter how realistic a game becomes, it is still VIRTUAL reality, not a combat simulator.

And realism in games sometimes kills the fun, because it starts to become realistic, and not the fun games they intended on playing in the first place (the idea of the game is to be FUN.) So no matter how realistic the game may get, ultimately often the gamer just takes a look at it for a few second and turns off the PC. Also consider some other factors:

How easy is it to get awesome weapons in real life like heavy machine guns and fully automatic blood covered AK-47s? It's not like its a few cents you know.
How many people can you see that survive 50 story falls because they land in a hay bale? For starters, how the hell does the hay get there?
How many gamers have you seen that have gone on rampages and killed many people? It's just not going to happen because of moral (everyone has them.)
How many people have you seen nowadays say that violence is unacceptable? Views of wars have greatly changed since the 60's, from the romantic and heroic views to the typical hippy based view. Almost every gamer is in a similar way to some extent too.
How come swearing is always in games and is popular? It always has been, it can emphasize opinions and is generally accepted as common language.
What if the person were to get some sort of firearm and use it to kill someone? Only maybe 15% of the world even knows how to load a gun, let alone shoot it.
When you kill someone, what does it ultimately do? Screw your life up and get yourself killed, because suddenly its not a game, it's harsh reality and always has been. It wasn't heroic, it was something that should have always been avoided. My uncle can tell you all about this, after serving in Vietnam. It fucked his life up so bad, all the agent orange gave him parkinsons, and a permanent reminder of what he had to do in Vietnam. It ultimately made him shoot himself.

Rest in peace.

Back to the game issue. No matter what you think, playing a realistic game will not encourage mass murder and rampages, because of that, it's just a game, not a trainer. Let people bash this fact all they want, ultimately they just are bashing it because it is something new and they don't like to see change. No human does. Sadly we live in a world of revolution. Deal with it bitch.

I don't think he talks about this kind of mass murder problem but more of the subtle problems. It is known by the military that people have a certain "threshold" which describes how the react to violence. If a civilian is confronted with violence like somebody getting attacked in a lethal way in front of them what happens? Usually many things but not the right thing since people loose their cool. This is because they are not used to such things to happen. With soldiers special training is done to lower this threshold so they stay more focus. This process is often described as numbing down the perception of violence. It becomes normal and no more something cruel. It doesn't mean somebody becomes a killer because of that but one might observe that the limit for applied softer forms of violence ( can be also verbal not always required to be with weaponary ) increases with such people. I've seen a lot of violent kids around here which are not violent in the sense of using weapons to shoot people but various other forms of aggressive behavior. Not that this has to come from the use of games, that's not what I ( and I'm sure neither the article writer ) imply but it is a good way to understand what kind of effect he's talking about. This brings up then the question if such numbing down is good for a society in entirety or not.

You bring up an interesting point. The same point, however, can be used against your argument.

In becoming adjusted to not only violence but also gruesome scenes and stressful situations, people become better able to respond in emergency situations and under stress.

This is correct and an argument also used for games. The question though is what happens to the actual individual? Being used to a stress situation is one thing but doing the right action in an emergency another. In military service we had to teach this difference to the soldiers. Being able to bear what's going on is one thing but doing the right actions requires repetition and practice. Hence doing the right action is about knowledge and training. Therefore I doubt that the average person attaining this solidity against stressful situations using games ends up doing the right actions simply because they are not trained to do so. Of course this depends on formation ( including family situation ) and the neighborhood. In general though an increase in readiness for using violence has increased compared to past years. I don't think games are the sole reason for that but they sure play their role in this all.

Umm, no? Violent crimes are falling in number, not increasing.

slapstick violence has always been in cartoons, its to bad if moms dont obey the age cert on the game

If we look at early television programs, we can still see violence. While it may not be as bloody as it is today, there were still westerns and other shows with violence. Now, of course, we have more realistic violence. Is there any evidence that more realism makes the violence any worse? For the foreseeable future, we will still be sitting in front of computer screens to do our gaming. There will be that degree of separation that almost everybody recognizes.

Now, on the other hand we must consider that there have always been violent people. I do believe that there are now more of them, however. One could easily argue that this increase in readiness for using violence is due to a lack of proper parenting. In fact, I think that the article author's "ignore the kids" is a major flaw to the article. Even if violence in video games does make people more inclined to violence, it would be interesting to learn if those who do become more inclined had liberal access to "violent" video games earlier in their lives. After all, it is during that time of our lives that we are most suceptible to the things we see and ideas. These people are also inclined to continue playing violent video games.

I understand where you are coming from with the training aspect. Repitition is important in many fields where a response given a certain situation is critical, such as flying. However, even without training, could video games perhaps turn someone who would otherwise run away in fear into a hero? I'm not saying that this will happen in every case, but even if it only happens in 1% of cases, might it not all be worth it?

As a side note, I wouldn't be sure that the author of the article is right about video games getting more realistic anyways. People want to play something fun and entertaining. If things get too real, the appeal may be lost. Games, like movies, are an art form. It's interesting that the author picked Bioshock for his observations, because Bioshock also poses some important moral questions, in the same way that some violent movies (i.e. Crash) sometimes do. I'm simply not sure we can say yet that video games will continue heading more toward reality. I know that at least having some artistic license can make for a much more interesting product in the end.

Yeah, picking Bioshock had been odd. There are games out there which are really only based on killing whatever you have to in the most nasty way one can think off. But it will be interesting to see if the sales really drop if realistic killing gets too realistic. I'm not so sure in fact. After all the FPS genre while being one of many game genres has ( besides MMOs ) the largest market share. So people seem to like the violence in the game otherwise they would not buy them. But selling charts are tricky since the figures are horribly skewed one way or the other.

@Gibberstein:
Not sure if this is different in your part of the world but around Europe given the facts of police forces the usage of violence increases. For example one Journalist put together once a real nice chart listing school shootings in Europe. The time between consecutive events is shoterning which equals to an increasing rate of school shootings per year. Now this is one example of where violance is on the rise.

N0dachi wrote:

Dragonlord wrote: Yeah, picking Bioshock had been odd. There are games out there which are really only based on killing whatever you have to in the most nasty way one can think off. But it will be interesting to see if the sales really drop if realistic killing gets too realistic. I'm not so sure in fact. After all the FPS genre while being one of many game genres has ( besides MMOs ) the largest market share. So people seem to like the violence in the game otherwise they would not buy them. But selling charts are tricky since the figures are horribly skewed one way or the other.

@Gibberstein:
Not sure if this is different in your part of the world but around Europe given the facts of police forces the usage of violence increases. For example one Journalist put together once a real nice chart listing school shootings in Europe. The time between consecutive events is shoterning which equals to an increasing rate of school shootings per year. Now this is one example of where violance is on the rise.

For super ultra realistic FPS youd have to incorporate the people not able to play the game because of the crappy old machine theyve got. And that is just one point you could argue about when comparing sales! So i agree that the charts are crap.

Last Column:
Wrong, well not entirely.
It is true that the time between school shootings shortened but a school shootings barely affect the statistics, this goes for pretty much every country even the US. In Germany the overall violence did decrease by a margin of roughly 3.1% over the past 8 years but the kind of violence changed that is true. I could go on with statistics but its rather hard to translate it all tbh.

Edited by: N0dachi

Not sure about that. In Germany especially there is a huge debate on violent games and getting them banned. I don't think that would be much of a topic if violence would be dropping, right?

Dragonlord wrote: Not sure about that. In Germany especially there is a huge debate on violent games and getting them banned. I don't think that would be much of a topic if violence would be dropping, right?

I have a feeling that it's always the "topic" when politicians have votes to gain from their (likely) misinformed constituents that think all violent video games encourage going out and slaughtering people.

The media (at least here in the States) does plenty to keep a bad perception of violent video games. I can remember talk of the Virginia Tech shooter having played violent video games; this proved to be untrue. When the media got word of the hot coffee mod for GTA, I can remember the format one news station presented the story in: they put censored footage of the mod in action on a poorly 3D-modeled TV screen in front of which there was a game console with a controller sticking out of it with the various buttons and pads moving on it. They played this dark music in the background, with the reporter basically saying "is this what you want your kid to be doing. I would like to point out that the console version of GTA could not be modded like this (which is probably obvious to most people here). The media was effectively creating the perception that the console version was suceptible too, which was a flat-out lie. And I can't help but wonder if the modding community, with its "nude skins" and "mods that add more blood and gore" will become the next target of the media. If that happens, I'm concerned that the companies that make the games will stop offering SDKs and cut off modders.

To sum up that argument, I wouldn't be surprised if violence was dropping in Germany and there is still debate of banning violent video games.

And, back to more of the topic at hand: why must it always be school shootings that get cited? There have been cases where school shooters have had no connection with violent video games. And there have been situations (i.e. Columbine) where I would imagine the same thing would have happened even if violent video games didn't exist. At the same time, there have been independent cases of people trying to kill someone like it's done in a video game. I'm just not sure it's realistic to try to track real life violence spurred by video games; in some cases, there are simply too many variables. Just because the killer had Halo doesn't mean it inspired him to kill, etc. After all, most of these people end up dead.

It's not about connecting school shootings to video games. The point has been that the occurrence of these events has increased and not just a bit but noticeable. It's of course only one form of violence in society. But if you leave all the fud about video game violence and politician talking outside and look at the reported cases of violence in the recent years then I can not get around to notice an increase in violence. I don't know exactly where those figures come from stating that violence dropped since this doesn't line up with what I know. I'm not blaming this on video games in the first place but these figures look strange to me, like sugar-talking a problem. Maybe the number of cases dropped slightly but the degree of violence used in them for sure does not. There have been recent events which are really outch in the amount of violence used.

Now concerning the media and news. Of course they excagerrate things, that's their job after all. But in some cases they are not that much off. I would not allow one of my kids ( if I had any ) play violent video games. Reason? Less so to not expose them to violence since movies and books do this already not counting schools itself ( I know since I fell victim to violence at schools back in my school days more than once ) but simply because I'm convinced that games can "teach" something. And I prefer to teach constructive problem solving than killing anything not complying with your ideas. If adults want to play that kind of game no problem with me. They have to know for themselves if this is what they want to do. But with kids parents have a certain responsibility.

Like i said its a matter of perception. Just because you think its unsafe to walk the streets at night doesnt mean it really is. Like Kyogex is saying, this is very noticeble in the US. The media there is basically ravaging every fucking crime. They are trying to scare people shitless. This is going on in most media btw. It helps getting some Laws trought which wouldnt be possible without scare tactics. Look at the "patriot act" in US, or the fucking childpornograhpy "Stopp-sign" in Germany. Both laws incorporating acts of reducing freedom and effectivly increasing the means to censor a variety of things.
Stats dont really lie. Crimes, at least in Germany, are dropping its as simple as it is. Though i have to admit that the committed crimes did get more violent of the course of years. I.E. People tend to think that guns are more dangerous then fists. Why is that? There are more poeple dieing in fist fights then there are cases of someone shooting somebody.

For your last sentences i fully agree. After i started playing "violent" games at the age of 13 and looking back at it now, i have to say this: Games for 18+ shouldnt be sold to 14 year olds.
But i think in almost ever country the parents are out of this discussion. That is utter bullshit. Its the first priority of the parents to teach the kids and prevent them from playing such games even if they acquire them. But sadly most parents simply start blaming random facts instead of seeing their own faults.

Edited by: N0dachi

I don't know; the media does seem to blow things out of proportion, but some areas do have a lot of crime.

I hear around 40 sirens a day (police/ambulance/fire) And theres always some rowdy mother fuckers roaming around. If you're outside you'll hear someone yelling/screaming atleast once or twice every hour.

Edited by: NGS616

Someone wrote: But i think in almost ever country the parents are out of this discussion. That is utter bullshit. Its the first priority of the parents to teach the kids and prevent them from playing such games even if they acquire them. But sadly most parents simply start blaming random facts instead of seeing their own faults.

Games do make an incredibly good scapegoat for the larger societal problem that parents just don't care anymore. It's not that parents need to get "tougher" on their kids in many cases, its just that they need to stop being apathetic.

Someone wrote: Just because you think its unsafe to walk the streets at night doesnt mean it really is.

I would say this depends more on location. Certainly, there are less people out at night, making crime easier where law enforcement is inadequate. And I would imagine there are places where it is equally risky during the night and the day. There are some cities where walking the streets during the day puts you at significant risk of being mugged.

Someone wrote: For your last sentences i fully agree. After i started playing "violent" games at the age of 13 and looking back at it now, i have to say this: Games for 18+ shouldnt be sold to 14 year olds.

Someone wrote: I would not allow one of my kids ( if I had any ) play violent video games.

I was never trying to refer to kids specifically, while I realize that the quote did. What I was trying to indicate was that there was a certain injustice to it, considering the fact that the console versions seemed to be more popular and it was only the PC version that was generating concern anyways.

Someone wrote: Both laws incorporating acts of reducing freedom and effectivly increasing the means to censor a variety of things.

I don't know how many times I've seen the question brought up lately of freedom vs. safety and security. Benjamin Franklin famously wrote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." The question then becomes, what is essential liberty. Have we already given it up? Certainly in these troubling times a certain degree of safety must be given up to ensure that our essential right to life and liberty is not violated by those who would take it away, whether for personal, political, or religious reasons (I suspect that the latter is simply and excuse for the second in many cases).

Violent video games, then, open up a can of worms in a whole new dimension. In many ways, they could be considered art. In the United States, therefore, they would be protected by the Bill of Rights. But then, some might say that they're something else, a "killing trainer" form of media. My concern is that the media will sway public opinion to make people think of violent video games as something different, something that could then be regulated by legislators in a whole new way.

Someone wrote: I'm convinced that games can "teach" something

True, but I would imagine that movies, books, and other forms of media can especially when you start to sympathize with a character. And sure, you might not be the one pushing the buttons to make the character do what he or she does, but that isn't to say a person couldn't agree with their actions. Conversely, the player character in a video game isn't necessarily "perfect" either, and a player might disagree with his or her actions, even as he or she is actively causing those actions.

I believe that this increase in the degree of violence is part of a bigger societal problem, that has nothing to do with games. When times get tough, people start to break. The problem now is that there is better access to weapons. Thats why we get these nutcases firing automatic weapons at cops and the like.

I would argue that games have a higher teaching ability than books or movies simply because games have something that books and movies lack: interactivity. The player is given a task or some sort and a set of means ( more or less large set ) to solve the task. The point is that the player makes decisions, thinks about how to solve the problem. Especially he can make moral choices. In Deus-Ex for example you can decide to play as a pacifist ( which I think is more rewarding but also more tricky ). His choice can change the entire game world ( in Deus-Ex only to a certain degree but in general it's possible ) which allows to see the outcome of your actions. In a movie or book you can not go back and do things different. In games you can and this is what gives them the teaching ability.