And there are games where you can literally do all those things. Not seeing the problem to be honest.
let me say it this way
99% of all games (as example of my point that is still not understood) over the past 20+ years have had violence leaving us with 1% of all games in the past 20 years to not have violence
you still dont see a problem?
Not enough sex? Tbh if there was a problem with that, then the market would have adapted to cater to whatever was most in demand. So, is there a problem? obviously not.
yes there is a problem
1. its not an option of sex of violence. I want to build a fucking factory for fuck sake (as an example)
2. most people and many here have a mythological understanding of economic markets that assume 100% of the market is based on demand and Supply has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The market doesn't read minds, it has to actually produce something of reasonable quality (like the Sims) and make it publicly available and have people aware that it exists before they can determine that people actually want more of it.
3. media controls content far more then you release and it forms our perception of what people want often inaccurately. Now is this done on purpose? I doubt it but its a case of 20 years the same pattern all because Doom was a success (as an example).
4. I find it disturbing frankly that people willingly accept that advertising does affect a persons view point, that news affects a persons view point but the only thing out of all that exists that is immune to that rule is...violence.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
And there are games where you can literally do all those things. Not seeing the problem to be honest.
let me say it this way
99% of all games (as example of my point that is still not understood) over the past 20+ years have had violence leaving us with 1% of all games in the past 20 years to not have violence
you still dont see a problem?
Well sure I see 'a' problem, just not 'the' problem you're talking about. Mario has 'violence'. Jumping up and squashing a teddy bear flat is kinda violent, so its gotta fall into that 99% youre talking about. But do you get the sense when you're playing the game that its about violence? I see a problem with the way you're catagorizing the games with this sort of 'if you cause stuff to die it must be violent'. Thats not really reality.
1. to compare mario jumping up an down on a creature to graphic depection of someones head being cut off is being naive.
2. HOWEVER..I would agree in the context of what I am saying regarding variety of content. combat, cartoon or otherwise is way the fuck over done and its boring as balls after about the 1 billionith time. Life has a TON to offer and all of it can be expressed in games just because I am calling for developers to widen their fucking tiny box doesnt mean I am suggesting the scared need for violent expression is being oppressed. I just want to do something else in my games other than fucking mob hunt is all I am trying to say here
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
And there are games where you can literally do all those things. Not seeing the problem to be honest.
let me say it this way
99% of all games (as example of my point that is still not understood) over the past 20+ years have had violence leaving us with 1% of all games in the past 20 years to not have violence
you still dont see a problem?
Not enough sex? Tbh if there was a problem with that, then the market would have adapted to cater to whatever was most in demand. So, is there a problem? obviously not.
yes there is a problem
1. its not an option of sex of violence. I want to build a fucking factory for fuck sake (as an example)
2. most people and many here have a mythological understanding of economic markets that assume 100% of the market is based on demand and Supply has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The market doesn't read minds, it has to actually produce something of reasonable quality (like the Sims) and make it publicly available and have people aware that it exists before they can determine that people actually want more of it.
3. media controls content far more then you release and it forms our perception of what people want often inaccurately. Now is this done on purpose? I doubt it but its a case of 20 years the same pattern all because Doom was a success (as an example).
4. I find it disturbing frankly that people willingly accept that advertising does affect a persons view point, that news affects a persons view point but the only thing out of all that exists that is immune to that rule is...violence.
Advertising can certainly help sell boxes, sure, no question about it, but the product still has to be in demand, if a game is released and there is no demand for it, then it won't sell, or it will sell poorly, we live after all in an age where people are connected to a degree previously thought unthinkable, you have people giving opinions on things none stop on everything from youtube to twitter and even facebook, there is only so much that advertising can do to negate any negative reports those media generate, just see what happened recently with the new ghostbusters film, its an absolute lemon, and thats even despite Sony plugging the hell out of it and trying to spin all kind of rubbish to generate interest. So, while advertising helps, obviously it does, it doesn't take much for that advertising to be completely made irrelevant, why else do you think have so many games recently failed, or are failing. Supply and Demand are absolutely the driving factors in a games success. The games people are getting, are the games they explicitly want.
Advertising can certainly help sell boxes, sure, no question about it, but the product still has to be in demand, if a game is released and there is no demand for it, then it won't sell, or it will sell poorly, we live after all in an age where people are connected to a degree previously thought unthinkable, you have people giving opinions on things none stop on everything from youtube to twitter and even facebook, there is only so much that advertising can do to negate any negative reports those media generate, just see what happened recently with the new ghostbusters film, its an absolute lemon, and thats even despite Sony plugging the hell out of it and trying to spin all kind of rubbish to generate interest. So, while advertising helps, obviously it does, it doesn't take much for that advertising to be completely made irrelevant, why else do you think have so many games recently failed, or are failing. Supply and Demand are absolutely the driving factors in a games success. The games people are getting, are the games they explicitly want.
no your not following me
1. The product in question has to actually exist in the market place 2. people have to know it actually exists 3. it has to be of good quality.
The problem in both TV and games people are feed from a small menu and that menu is never tested.
if you have a buffet table and you only have cake on it and people are hungry they are going to eat cake, well if you dont put fish on the table how do you know they dont want fish? you dont.
people tend to ASSUME that what is in the market place now is because other ideas where in the market place and failed but more often then not that is not at all the case. Its more often a strick well controlled diet feed to you by the supply chain
this buy the way is a video example of the supply chain 'problem' in video games as well as other industries (wasteland 2 by the way went to get very good reviews and sold very well)
Post edited by SEANMCAD on
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
All of these reports of video games and TV causing people to be the way they are, are total crap. The main reason people are the way they are is because of parenting or lack of it. When I look around today I see children running through stores doing whatever they want while their parents do nothing. Children screaming their heads off while their parents do nothing. Hell children getting caught doing things wrong and the parents blaming whoever caught them. The main problem is a lack of parenting and discipline. That is the answer not games or TV, but parenting.
Raise your children to be respectful and polite and most likely they want be violent, unless there is actually something wrong with them.
can we agree purely from a creative standpoint that violence is just so overdone in media and games that its friggin passe and boring.
Its not a moral statement I am making here, its too many magic ponies already statement here
How can you take an artist, author, director, game developer, whatever, seriously if they are afraid to deal with the topic of life and death, and more importantly conflict? You cant. On a nearly universal scale since the dawn of recorded history, these topics have been what the great storytellers of their time dive into and grasp as their subject matter.
So, with this in mind, is it played out, tired, boring stale? No. Hell no it isnt. Artists can explore and touch on these subjects in a safe environment. Our soldiers who fight in endless often meaningless wars cant. They pay with their lives. How do the two correlate? Both are still happening. Real war is a much bigger concern, not your boredom with shit nobody forces you to watch.
If it is so safe then why do the artists themselves usually end up twisted and taking medications, drugs, prostitutes, ect.... It is only untill recently that hollywood has gotten its act together and only because the drugs are prescribed instead of illegal now.
Did you just say that creating Video games causes drug abuse? OMG. O.o
No but clearly the type of media created reflects the creator. I gurantee that if you did a drug test on the studio that makes GTA, Saint's Row series or shows like OZZ or the Sapranos then they wouldn't have enough people to sweep the floor. And you can also gurantee that none of those works had any kind of positive impact on anyone.
can we agree purely from a creative standpoint that violence is just so overdone in media and games that its friggin passe and boring.
Its not a moral statement I am making here, its too many magic ponies already statement here
How can you take an artist, author, director, game developer, whatever, seriously if they are afraid to deal with the topic of life and death, and more importantly conflict? You cant. On a nearly universal scale since the dawn of recorded history, these topics have been what the great storytellers of their time dive into and grasp as their subject matter.
So, with this in mind, is it played out, tired, boring stale? No. Hell no it isnt. Artists can explore and touch on these subjects in a safe environment. Our soldiers who fight in endless often meaningless wars cant. They pay with their lives. How do the two correlate? Both are still happening. Real war is a much bigger concern, not your boredom with shit nobody forces you to watch.
If it is so safe then why do the artists themselves usually end up twisted and taking medications, drugs, prostitutes, ect.... It is only untill recently that hollywood has gotten its act together and only because the drugs are prescribed instead of illegal now.
Did you just say that creating Video games causes drug abuse? OMG. O.o
No but clearly the type of media created reflects the creator. I gurantee that if you did a drug test on the studio that makes GTA, Saint's Row series or shows like OZZ or the Sapranos then they wouldn't have enough people to sweep the floor. And you can also gurantee that none of those works had any kind of positive impact on anyone.
putting OZ and GTA into the same story telling category just made my hairstand on end. There is violence for violence sake as sacred as that is and then their is using violence for good story telling.
However more often then not we end up having no idea if a story of the quality of OZ or The Wire can even exist without violence because we dont have anything to make that measurement unless of course we now have Better Call Saul.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
can we agree purely from a creative standpoint that violence is just so overdone in media and games that its friggin passe and boring.
Its not a moral statement I am making here, its too many magic ponies already statement here
How can you take an artist, author, director, game developer, whatever, seriously if they are afraid to deal with the topic of life and death, and more importantly conflict? You cant. On a nearly universal scale since the dawn of recorded history, these topics have been what the great storytellers of their time dive into and grasp as their subject matter.
So, with this in mind, is it played out, tired, boring stale? No. Hell no it isnt. Artists can explore and touch on these subjects in a safe environment. Our soldiers who fight in endless often meaningless wars cant. They pay with their lives. How do the two correlate? Both are still happening. Real war is a much bigger concern, not your boredom with shit nobody forces you to watch.
If it is so safe then why do the artists themselves usually end up twisted and taking medications, drugs, prostitutes, ect.... It is only untill recently that hollywood has gotten its act together and only because the drugs are prescribed instead of illegal now.
Did you just say that creating Video games causes drug abuse? OMG. O.o
No but clearly the type of media created reflects the creator. I gurantee that if you did a drug test on the studio that makes GTA, Saint's Row series or shows like OZZ or the Sapranos then they wouldn't have enough people to sweep the floor. And you can also gurantee that none of those works had any kind of positive impact on anyone.
Lol
I wonder what the floor would look like if you did the same thing in Congress or the Senate
There is no doubt that the majority of violent crime and crime in general is for the love of money. So why don't we just ban currency, let everyone have everything for free and we can all live happily ever after
There is no doubt that the majority of violent crime and crime in general is for the love of money. So why don't we just ban currency, let everyone have everything for free and we can all live happily ever after
why does the question of 'is there too much violence in games' immediately turn into 'you want to ban it'. I think the reason is because the assumption is that those who want less violence are coming from a moral stance based on 1950s reasoning and usually its not
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
And there are games where you can literally do all those things. Not seeing the problem to be honest.
let me say it this way
99% of all games (as example of my point that is still not understood) over the past 20+ years have had violence leaving us with 1% of all games in the past 20 years to not have violence
you still dont see a problem?
I see a problem with you making up statistics to try and prove a very bad point.
so is it 90%? 85%? what do you honestly think the ratio is?
Because people here seem to think 1-2 games equals 'plenty I dont see the problem'
I'm not the one trying to prove the point. A better statement would be to say "a large percentage of games are geared towards violence" If you want to start throwing around numbers then you had better back them up with facts. Cant take someone seriously if their argument is already flawed.
And there are games where you can literally do all those things. Not seeing the problem to be honest.
let me say it this way
99% of all games (as example of my point that is still not understood) over the past 20+ years have had violence leaving us with 1% of all games in the past 20 years to not have violence
you still dont see a problem?
I see a problem with you making up statistics to try and prove a very bad point.
so is it 90%? 85%? what do you honestly think the ratio is?
Because people here seem to think 1-2 games equals 'plenty I dont see the problem'
I'm not the one trying to prove the point. A better statement would be to say "a large percentage of games are geared towards violence" If you want to start throwing around numbers then you had better back them up with facts. Cant take someone seriously if their argument is already flawed.
which is EXACTLY nearly word for word what I said orginally and the next comment was basically 'well there are those two games you mentioned that arent so I fail to see the problem' so clearly that approach didnt work so I had to think of a different approach
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This topic is not related to the value concerns of 1980. We get it, its not a question of banning it, its not a question of is it immoral or bad or should be censored. The OP is just saying it seems like its excessive (not as in exists but a matter of a degree) and is impressionable toward kids, its 1016 now not 1980. as a side note, I am taking a different concern in just saying there is a lack of variety in creative content because content creators for whatever reason are completely addicted to making every single thing they can be about violence.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There is no doubt that video games do not promote violence. There is also no doubt that a society in a perpetual state of war, extremism and division DOES promote violence.
What are kids supposed to think when they see police beating the shit out of people, their country always at war and hostile ideologies being promoted on TV?
Sure when their entire environment is violence covered up by lies told by adults assuming they are too stupid to realize it, they become more violent.
If anything video games are a healthy release of violence that actual society teaches us is ok, but not ok, only for police....and military....and to defend yourself.....but not too much....or for the wrong reason....or to the wrong person.... or to a business....no matter what they do or say to you or you will go to jail forever. Yeah seems like a real legit thing to teach kids.
There is no doubt that the majority of violent crime and crime in general is for the love of money. So why don't we just ban currency, let everyone have everything for free and we can all live happily ever after
why does the question of 'is there too much violence in games' immediately turn into 'you want to ban it'. I think the reason is because the assumption is that those who want less violence are coming from a moral stance based on 1950s reasoning and usually its not
I like how most people replied to this thread didnt even read the OP as almost all replies has nothing to do with what it said.
As more replies are added to a thread, the likelyhood of remaining on topic decreases exponentially.
Was messed up from page 1 lol, but you are right it got worse the more post were added.
Actually, the last 3 paragraphs of your OP are pretty much spot on with what is being discussed, is it not? The effects of media on gun violence and so on...
@Rhoklaw ;This study is not about all violent video games are bad. That kids can not play them. It was about the quantity that kids consume without parents adding enough positive media like educational. That some kids have a leaning towards aggression. Feeding that aggression before you identify this can lead to stronger aggression and acts of violence. Again this is not all kids.
What the study is suggesting (if you read it in whole) is kids should be monitored. Violent media should be controlled and removed if the kid shows a leaning towards more aggression. As it said...
"Your child might be at greater risk than others, particularly when parents see aggressive tendencies in their children, they should make very concerted efforts to reduce the violence in their child's media diet."
My wife works in the education field. She see this, kids so out of control that they have to evacuate all the other kids from a room. As one child is smashing the room to pieces. Talking to these type of kids, their parents are not engaging their kids. Using adult content media to raise their kids.
This violent behavior is not always seen on this scale. Sometimes it subtle. Again without close supervision and media control it can have a damaging effect on some kids.
The study in short is about quantity, supervision and control. IMO this is epidemic and more widespread than most people believe. Again IMO empathy seems to be at an all time low. Could this be because of media? If you are a parent and not asking these questions...
I like how most people replied to this thread didnt even read the OP as almost all replies has nothing to do with what it said.
As more replies are added to a thread, the likelyhood of remaining on topic decreases exponentially.
Was messed up from page 1 lol, but you are right it got worse the more post were added.
Actually, the last 3 paragraphs of your OP are pretty much spot on with what is being discussed, is it not? The effects of media on gun violence and so on...
@Rhoklaw ;This study is not about all violent video games are bad. That kids can not play them. It was about the quantity that kids consume without parents adding enough positive media like educational. That some kids have a leaning towards aggression. Feeding that aggression before you identify this can lead to stronger aggression and acts of violence. Again this is not all kids.
What the study is suggesting (if you read it in whole) is kids should be monitored. Violent media should be controlled and removed if the kid shows a leaning towards more aggression. As it said...
"Your child might be at greater risk than others, particularly when parents see aggressive tendencies in their children, they should make very concerted efforts to reduce the violence in their child's media diet."
My wife works in the education field. She see this, kids so out of control that they have to evacuate all the other kids from a room. As one child is smashing the room to pieces. Talking to these type of kids, their parents are not engaging their kids. Using adult content media to raise their kids.
This violent behavior is not always seen on this scale. Sometimes it subtle. Again without close supervision and media control it can have a damaging effect on some kids.
The study in short is about quantity, supervision and control. IMO this is epidemic and more widespread than most people believe. Again IMO empathy seems to be at an all time low. Could this be because of media? If you are a parent and not asking these questions...
The parents who already control their kids media intake already know this. The parents who don't give a shit will continue to do so and probably aren't looking for studies like this or listening to educators because "its my kid dammit!"
To be honest the study is useless. I would have put out a statement saying "Parents should be parents and not let the tv raise their children". Of course then my first sentence would still hold true.
Well it's less of a study and more of a compilation of other studies. I read through most of their cited papers and it still remains a silly fearmongering headline. I'm still waiting for a long term study of video game behavior modification, almost everything I've seen has pointed to short-term spikes in aggression (and when I say "spike" I just mean an increase), but no consistent growth of aggression.
Some of those cited studies had very small sample sizes and also looked for causal links in the immediate term. Meaning, they had subjects take on tasks immediately after playing. It'd be more interesting to see the behavior change data from someone playing a violent video game, then not playing any for a week and then taking these same tests. I suppose I'd structure it 1hr after gaming, 6hrs after gaming, 1 day, 1 week. Just to have a better understanding.
Beyond that, aggression, and video game induced aggression are only one risk factor for violence, and there doesn't seem to be any studies showing the degree of severity of that risk factor in violent behavior. This is also likely due to test subjects being inherently non-violent participants. So we don't know if at any point, any of them would become violent, whereas someone with a history of violence could find a trigger or a boost of aggression sufficient enough to manifest actual violence. Studying college student volunteers is not likely to produce any data of this sort.
If a child is from a loving home with caring adults, no amount of video game (or other media) violence will spur them into violent behavior. So measuring their aggression is largely moot. We could probably get significantly stronger aggression readings by putting people in rush hour traffic and measuring their aggression.
So supervise your children and concern yourself with what they consume . . . well duh? Obviously if a parent is neglectful their child will naturally develop behavior issues with or without video games. It's like a non-statement. "If you don't teach your child to swim and then throw them in the deep end of a pool, they're more likely to drown!" Well no shit Sherlock.
Well it's less of a study and more of a compilation of other studies. I read through most of their cited papers and it still remains a silly fearmongering headline. I'm still waiting for a long term study of video game behavior modification, almost everything I've seen has pointed to short-term spikes in aggression (and when I say "spike" I just mean an increase), but no consistent growth of aggression.
I know I keep asking people this question but its actually a question I would like someone to answer.
If violence in media forms have no affect on people then why is it different from marketing and news propaganda which we all agree (or should agree) DOES work.
whats the difference between the two in that context?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I like how most people replied to this thread didnt even read the OP as almost all replies has nothing to do with what it said.
As more replies are added to a thread, the likelyhood of remaining on topic decreases exponentially.
Was messed up from page 1 lol, but you are right it got worse the more post were added.
Actually, the last 3 paragraphs of your OP are pretty much spot on with what is being discussed, is it not? The effects of media on gun violence and so on...
@Rhoklaw ;This study is not about all violent video games are bad. That kids can not play them. It was about the quantity that kids consume without parents adding enough positive media like educational. That some kids have a leaning towards aggression. Feeding that aggression before you identify this can lead to stronger aggression and acts of violence. Again this is not all kids.
What the study is suggesting (if you read it in whole) is kids should be monitored. Violent media should be controlled and removed if the kid shows a leaning towards more aggression. As it said...
"Your child might be at greater risk than others, particularly when parents see aggressive tendencies in their children, they should make very concerted efforts to reduce the violence in their child's media diet."
My wife works in the education field. She see this, kids so out of control that they have to evacuate all the other kids from a room. As one child is smashing the room to pieces. Talking to these type of kids, their parents are not engaging their kids. Using adult content media to raise their kids.
This violent behavior is not always seen on this scale. Sometimes it subtle. Again without close supervision and media control it can have a damaging effect on some kids.
The study in short is about quantity, supervision and control. IMO this is epidemic and more widespread than most people believe. Again IMO empathy seems to be at an all time low. Could this be because of media? If you are a parent and not asking these questions...
The parents who already control their kids media intake already know this. The parents who don't give a shit will continue to do so and probably aren't looking for studies like this or listening to educators because "its my kid dammit!"
To be honest the study is useless. I would have put out a statement saying "Parents should be parents and not let the tv raise their children". Of course then my first sentence would still hold true.
While its certainly true that there are some parents out there who could stand to take a few lessons in parenthood, i think there is also the perception that the pegi ratings etc are just 'advisory' and can be safely disregarded, or that if the game is 15+ rated, then its okay for their 12 year olds to play, because its not 18+ rated, and of course some parents just give in and let their children have those games because its easier than not. Does that mean that children who do access those games are likely to do something terrible because of it? there is no evidence to suggest that it ever has. What does affect the likelihood of increased violent behaviour, is the background and upbringing the child has, whether both parents take an active interest in the child, whether in fact the child does have the benefit of having both parents even, the standard of education, and whether or not the child grows up in a deprived area. It has been proven repeatedly that children brought up by single parents in deprived neighbourhoods are more likely to be involved in criminal activity than those who who have the benefit of having both parents. Anyone who has a mind to wade through the plethora of data the FBI puts out annually will probably find it an uncomfortably depressing truth, and one that any educational professional who works in those deprived areas will attest, is difficult to address, and playing too many violent games is pretty hard when they can't even afford a PC or Console to play them on. But if they could, it would probably be preferable to the 'other' activities they usually end up taking part in
I think on this subject there is a misunderstanding of what 'action' is caused here.
When you see an add for a car you dont jump up and go buy a car. but over a series of time you start to think differently not just about cars but about value. Wood trim with a label on it all of the sudden because a status symbol even though it doesnt mean jack shit in reality. where does that thought come from? well. advertising.
So how does that work in violence? does it make you want to punch someone? yes sometimes but usually it just fills you with a lot of negative feelings and feeling that your safety is being threaten and then you become the asshat that everyone knows at work because they are negative, slightly aggressive, upset and paranoid.
that is how it works
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think on this subject there is a misunderstanding of what 'action' is caused here.
When you see an add for a car you dont jump up and go buy a car. but over a series of time you start to think differently not just about cars but about value. Wood trim with a label on it all of the sudden because a status symbol even though it doesnt mean jack shit in reality. where does that thought come from? well. advertising.
So how does that work in violence? does it make you want to punch someone? yes sometimes but usually it just fills you with a lot of negative feelings and feeling that your safety is being threaten and then you become the asshat that everyone knows at work because they are negative, slightly aggressive, upset and paranoid.
that is how it works
If you are that easily influenced by violence then perhaps its better to look at why you are that way. I play violent video games and enjoy violent/action movies. Do I suddenly feel threatened and internalize the negativity around me? No because its make believe.
Now if you are talking about real world violence then obviously its not make believe but again I don't internalize it to become a paranoid jackass with anger issues. Those people that do tend to have some underlying issue that is causing them to act that way.
I think on this subject there is a misunderstanding of what 'action' is caused here.
When you see an add for a car you dont jump up and go buy a car. but over a series of time you start to think differently not just about cars but about value. Wood trim with a label on it all of the sudden because a status symbol even though it doesnt mean jack shit in reality. where does that thought come from? well. advertising.
So how does that work in violence? does it make you want to punch someone? yes sometimes but usually it just fills you with a lot of negative feelings and feeling that your safety is being threaten and then you become the asshat that everyone knows at work because they are negative, slightly aggressive, upset and paranoid.
that is how it works
If you are that easily influenced by violence then perhaps its better to look at why you are that way. I play violent video games and enjoy violent/action movies. Do I suddenly feel threatened and internalize the negativity around me? No because its make believe.
Now if you are talking about real world violence then obviously its not make believe but again I don't internalize it to become a paranoid jackass with anger issues. Those people that do tend to have some underlying issue that is causing them to act that way.
what I have found to be very reliable and predictable in this whole thread is 100% of everyone in it has consistently and more than once ignored my observation on advertising which has been posted in detail more than once.
I would like to know why these magic rules apply only to violence and not other things in media like.........advertising.....
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
1. its not an option of sex of violence. I want to build a fucking factory for fuck sake (as an example)
2. most people and many here have a mythological understanding of economic markets that assume 100% of the market is based on demand and Supply has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The market doesn't read minds, it has to actually produce something of reasonable quality (like the Sims) and make it publicly available and have people aware that it exists before they can determine that people actually want more of it.
3. media controls content far more then you release and it forms our perception of what people want often inaccurately. Now is this done on purpose? I doubt it but its a case of 20 years the same pattern all because Doom was a success (as an example).
4. I find it disturbing frankly that people willingly accept that advertising does affect a persons view point, that news affects a persons view point but the only thing out of all that exists that is immune to that rule is...violence.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. HOWEVER..I would agree in the context of what I am saying regarding variety of content. combat, cartoon or otherwise is way the fuck over done and its boring as balls after about the 1 billionith time. Life has a TON to offer and all of it can be expressed in games just because I am calling for developers to widen their fucking tiny box doesnt mean I am suggesting the scared need for violent expression is being oppressed. I just want to do something else in my games other than fucking mob hunt is all I am trying to say here
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So, while advertising helps, obviously it does, it doesn't take much for that advertising to be completely made irrelevant, why else do you think have so many games recently failed, or are failing.
Supply and Demand are absolutely the driving factors in a games success.
The games people are getting, are the games they explicitly want.
1. The product in question has to actually exist in the market place
2. people have to know it actually exists
3. it has to be of good quality.
The problem in both TV and games people are feed from a small menu and that menu is never tested.
if you have a buffet table and you only have cake on it and people are hungry they are going to eat cake, well if you dont put fish on the table how do you know they dont want fish? you dont.
people tend to ASSUME that what is in the market place now is because other ideas where in the market place and failed but more often then not that is not at all the case. Its more often a strick well controlled diet feed to you by the supply chain
this buy the way is a video example of the supply chain 'problem' in video games as well as other industries (wasteland 2 by the way went to get very good reviews and sold very well)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Raise your children to be respectful and polite and most likely they want be violent, unless there is actually something wrong with them.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I wonder what the floor would look like if you did the same thing in Congress or the Senate
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I'm not the one trying to prove the point. A better statement would be to say "a large percentage of games are geared towards violence" If you want to start throwing around numbers then you had better back them up with facts. Cant take someone seriously if their argument is already flawed.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
this is posted to the majority of people here.
This topic is not related to the value concerns of 1980. We get it, its not a question of banning it, its not a question of is it immoral or bad or should be censored. The OP is just saying it seems like its excessive (not as in exists but a matter of a degree) and is impressionable toward kids, its 1016 now not 1980. as a side note, I am taking a different concern in just saying there is a lack of variety in creative content because content creators for whatever reason are completely addicted to making every single thing they can be about violence.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What are kids supposed to think when they see police beating the shit out of people, their country always at war and hostile ideologies being promoted on TV?
Sure when their entire environment is violence covered up by lies told by adults assuming they are too stupid to realize it, they become more violent.
If anything video games are a healthy release of violence that actual society teaches us is ok, but not ok, only for police....and military....and to defend yourself.....but not too much....or for the wrong reason....or to the wrong person.... or to a business....no matter what they do or say to you or you will go to jail forever. Yeah seems like a real legit thing to teach kids.
p.s. I was joking
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
What the study is suggesting (if you read it in whole) is kids should be monitored. Violent media should be controlled and removed if the kid shows a leaning towards more aggression. As it said...
"Your child might be at greater risk than others, particularly when parents see aggressive tendencies in their children, they should make very concerted efforts to reduce the violence in their child's media diet."
My wife works in the education field. She see this, kids so out of control that they have to evacuate all the other kids from a room. As one child is smashing the room to pieces. Talking to these type of kids, their parents are not engaging their kids. Using adult content media to raise their kids.
This violent behavior is not always seen on this scale. Sometimes it subtle. Again without close supervision and media control it can have a damaging effect on some kids.
The study in short is about quantity, supervision and control. IMO this is epidemic and more widespread than most people believe. Again IMO empathy seems to be at an all time low. Could this be because of media? If you are a parent and not asking these questions...
The parents who already control their kids media intake already know this. The parents who don't give a shit will continue to do so and probably aren't looking for studies like this or listening to educators because "its my kid dammit!"
To be honest the study is useless. I would have put out a statement saying "Parents should be parents and not let the tv raise their children". Of course then my first sentence would still hold true.
Some of those cited studies had very small sample sizes and also looked for causal links in the immediate term. Meaning, they had subjects take on tasks immediately after playing. It'd be more interesting to see the behavior change data from someone playing a violent video game, then not playing any for a week and then taking these same tests. I suppose I'd structure it 1hr after gaming, 6hrs after gaming, 1 day, 1 week. Just to have a better understanding.
Beyond that, aggression, and video game induced aggression are only one risk factor for violence, and there doesn't seem to be any studies showing the degree of severity of that risk factor in violent behavior. This is also likely due to test subjects being inherently non-violent participants. So we don't know if at any point, any of them would become violent, whereas someone with a history of violence could find a trigger or a boost of aggression sufficient enough to manifest actual violence. Studying college student volunteers is not likely to produce any data of this sort.
If a child is from a loving home with caring adults, no amount of video game (or other media) violence will spur them into violent behavior. So measuring their aggression is largely moot. We could probably get significantly stronger aggression readings by putting people in rush hour traffic and measuring their aggression.
So supervise your children and concern yourself with what they consume . . . well duh? Obviously if a parent is neglectful their child will naturally develop behavior issues with or without video games. It's like a non-statement. "If you don't teach your child to swim and then throw them in the deep end of a pool, they're more likely to drown!" Well no shit Sherlock.
TL;DR - This is bad, incomplete science.
If violence in media forms have no affect on people then why is it different from marketing and news propaganda which we all agree (or should agree) DOES work.
whats the difference between the two in that context?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Does that mean that children who do access those games are likely to do something terrible because of it? there is no evidence to suggest that it ever has.
What does affect the likelihood of increased violent behaviour, is the background and upbringing the child has, whether both parents take an active interest in the child, whether in fact the child does have the benefit of having both parents even, the standard of education, and whether or not the child grows up in a deprived area.
It has been proven repeatedly that children brought up by single parents in deprived neighbourhoods are more likely to be involved in criminal activity than those who who have the benefit of having both parents.
Anyone who has a mind to wade through the plethora of data the FBI puts out annually will probably find it an uncomfortably depressing truth, and one that any educational professional who works in those deprived areas will attest, is difficult to address, and playing too many violent games is pretty hard when they can't even afford a PC or Console to play them on. But if they could, it would probably be preferable to the 'other' activities they usually end up taking part in
When you see an add for a car you dont jump up and go buy a car. but over a series of time you start to think differently not just about cars but about value. Wood trim with a label on it all of the sudden because a status symbol even though it doesnt mean jack shit in reality. where does that thought come from? well. advertising.
So how does that work in violence? does it make you want to punch someone? yes sometimes but usually it just fills you with a lot of negative feelings and feeling that your safety is being threaten and then you become the asshat that everyone knows at work because they are negative, slightly aggressive, upset and paranoid.
that is how it works
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Now if you are talking about real world violence then obviously its not make believe but again I don't internalize it to become a paranoid jackass with anger issues. Those people that do tend to have some underlying issue that is causing them to act that way.
I would like to know why these magic rules apply only to violence and not other things in media like.........advertising.....
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me