The forgotten topic on Violencia!

[netmonkey]

If you haven't guessed by now, Violencia is the Spanish (or Castillian) word for violence. I asked Jake the other day if we ever had a topic dedicated to video game violence because everyone is always talking about it, at least since the days of the original DOOM. Sure, Wolfestein was violent and all, but it wasn't popular enough (before DOOM) to deserve all the bitching from people.

So, I finally decided to start this topic after I read this article (found on Grumpy Gamer) from The Video Game Ombudsman.

It talks about this piece on 60 Minutes, a popular american television show (programme), did about GTA and someone who got inspired to kill some people based on it. From what I've read so far, here are the following things I'm thinking about

• Some people are stupid, perhaps even people in this forum. They play a game, without any common sense (apparently), and think it's real life.
  
• Is it necessary to make all games violent?
  
• Let's make sure we differ between action and violence. Donkey Kong has action, but it's not necessarily violent. You just hit Mario but he doesn't stumble down the beams dripping blood; he just spins around and you laugh!
  
• Do the things that you do in games give you ideas about real life? I'm sure if you've played Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 you felt like buying a skateboard and sk8ing, but don't expect to do those ultra impossible tricks, specially if you don't have a lightsaber and you're playing the game as darth maul.
  

So, I'll shut up and add some of my thoughts as the thread progresses and grows.

Reply!

[Roderick]

People are impressionable and take inspiration from the things they see in the media, some more than others. Violence could very well inspire more violent behaviour. But I think this is especially true for younger people who can't put a game in a larger context yet. I'm certainly not saying that violence should be banned, that's ridiculous. I'm just noting that it is my opinion that extreme violence in games could very well invoke bestial feelings inside the person playing. And it's up to the mental stability of that person to decide what to do with it; ie. turn it into a constructive experience or let himself go wild.

Personally, I don't need extreme forms of violence in my games. Sure, I look Doom and the like as much as the next guy. But when I even read about the Punisher game where you can literally torture your enemies in gruesome ways to extract information, which is a key element of the gameplay (it's fucking USP even!), my stomach turns. That is gratuitous and unnecessary. And don't tell me it's necessary to semiotically describe the character because that is bullshit. It's wrong, in my opinion.

[lailoken]

I don't think there's any way games can be killed for people killing people, that's just ridiculous. In germany there was this big case where this kid went into school and shot a bunch of people, he was 19. When people found out that he was playing counterstrike this whole wave of public indignation went on. The problem was that the public at large had not even known that counterstrike existed. So their first reaction (understandable to me) was of outrage and shock at a game that goes to some length to simulate the killing of other people. It went as far as going to censure (in germany there is a "censure bureau" with a list)but in the end the counterstrike community sent a few of their players to demonstrate the game to the people at the BPjM (Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Schriften=Federal Censure for youth-endangering scripture) and it was decided that the violence was not gratuitous as it was an essential part of the realistic setting but not the real goal of the game to kill people but to successfully interact in a team.

In the end it came out that not only had this guy (the shooter) been in gun-club (or whatever you call it) but he also had been able to GET A HOLD OF HIGHPOWERED GUNS! That was the REAL problem.

Most people IMHO used to have no idea about computer games and were easily manipulated into thinking there is a connection because politicians use it as a scapegoat. It used to be real easy because computer gaming was such a niche, but ever since the numbers went up, the whole attitude has changed. You can't just fuck with us anymore cuz we got big! The whole shtick with computer games creating more income than movies and all that... nice for once. To me there is no way to shift the responsibility from people to computergames when it comes to killing.

I also think that below the age of 12, kids should not be playing violent computer games (if any, but that's another topic). I think parents should know what their kids are up to, should care.

As far as violence in the US is concerned I believe that Michael Moore is right for once, about this "fear phenomenon". Gun regulations should be in place, there is no invasion comming anymore, so you can get rid of the guns and give each other a hug! ...and stop blaming computer games for the failure of your society!

[TMCB]

As Matthew Lilard's character said in Scream:

'Films don't create serial killers, they just make them more creative'

I don't honestly believe that video games turn people into mindless killers, more like there are already some serious issues that these individuals have that just cannot be contained within the imaginary world of computer games.

One of the best films I saw about this was 'Elephant', where the director avoided making assumptions about his characters. There were no answers for their rampage, and in many ways I think that will be the case until the end of time. There will never be a definitive reason why people do the psychotic stuff they do, no trigger, no method to the madness.

Again, another more important point was raised, we probably do as much harm by eating a burger at McDonalds (if not more) as playing any old violent game.

[TMCB]

Yeah, but it could get a whole lot dumber, if someone edited their post to 'violent dick'. Oh, hang on...