Videogame Violence?

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Unread postby Phoenix Jim » Tue Jun 24, 2003 9:24 pm

For anyone to be 'affected' by videogames and the media, they have to be seriously screwed up in the head to begin with.
I just know you'd adore to read my review of Dynasty Warriors 4 for "O2": ... 36830&mid=

And here are some lovely forums:
User avatar
Phoenix Jim
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 5:38 pm
Location: Back From The Flames Of Defeat

Unread postby Wonderboy Mini » Wed Jun 25, 2003 1:12 pm

Phoenix Jim wrote:For anyone to be 'affected' by videogames and the media, they have to be seriously screwed up in the head to begin with.

Like this guy?

User avatar
Wonderboy Mini
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 2:49 pm
Location: Rubacava

Unread postby The Hot Dog Queen » Wed Jun 25, 2003 9:25 pm

no, Mini, more like this:
The Hot Dog Queen

Unread postby Skyeye Amon Ra » Sat Jun 28, 2003 7:54 pm

Sun jian wrote:
skyeye84 wrote:Video games are more involving than movies where you just sit and watch. I have no problem with violent videogames; I have played quite a number of them, believe me. I do hate the media's lack of good reporting on this issue. They do not interview gamers for their opinion, instead they paint us as violent subversives, and they interview so-called knowledgeable "experts" who don't even come close to explaining the situation. All that is left is a mass number of people and especially parents who feel more scared about what their children maybe playing than what they could be doing when their out with friends.

Good point but I might add that the media is the reason for the target being games instead of what it really is: lack of self control and discipline. I think this has to do with upbringing and environment among other things including peer pressure, advertisements, and examples portrayed by hollywood, siblings, and other people kids look up to. I know cause I used to look up to some 'bad boys' but I didn't follow their example and it's each person's choice whether or not they decide to take those actions or not. It isn't the game making you pull a trigger or stabbing someone, now is it?

Exactly! Thanks for reminding me Sun Jian.
A true test of destiny is Power. - Me

"Is it the sea you hear in me, its dissatisfactions? Or the voice of nothing, that was your madness?" - Sylvia Plath

"These fragments I have shored against my ruins." - T.S. Eliot
User avatar
Skyeye Amon Ra
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 1:29 am
Location: Fighting through the wastelands of Natu

Unread postby Kublai Khan » Sun Jul 27, 2003 1:10 am

If you kill someone because of losing a game or because of something you saw on a game, then your a PYSCHO anyway. If you take something like a game and use it for murder, then there is already something wrong with you and you would probably freak out sooner or later. The game just happens to be the thing to set you off, if not the game, something would eventually set off that craziness.
Sign This!
Kublai Khan
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 7:57 am

Unread postby Justin » Sun Jul 27, 2003 3:31 am

Keep it on topic guys. Don't SPAM and keep the silly pictures to the pub. Thanks.
My Website

My Blog

The Dungeon

Trouble maker extraordinaire!
User avatar
Scholar of Shen Zhou
Posts: 3356
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 2:08 am
Location: Dropping it like it's hot


Unread postby hiko1127 » Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:33 pm

Hello I think the fact that the original article surprissed us is proof that violence in games is not affecting us if someone were to say huh I wonder if they used (insert kind of bullet) then that would raise susspision.
A ship is safe in a harbor but that isn't what a ship is built for.
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 8:44 pm

Unread postby Baka_Neko » Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:50 am

if you care so much about a game that you would physically hurt someone over it.. you're a whack job.. plain and simple.. the game was nothing but a trigger for an issue that was already there.. plain and simple

Unread postby Axel1917 » Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:34 pm

I won't deny that violent media can cause some younger children to imitate violent behavior, given that from what I have read, there are literally thousands of studies that indicate as such, but I feel that too much blame is being put on video games.

I am also irked at how people always point fingers at video games, but not at movies. Sure, video games are more interactive, but movies tend to be much more filled with gore and profanity (the "Strong language" on M-rated games consists of words like "shit." I have yet to hear an uncensored F-word in a video game). Some M-rated first person shooters, such as the Halo series, are not all that violent compared to movies; there is a little blood here and there, and the gore that is in the game is the gore of mutant parasitic creatures that are not even real, i.e. the Flood. I honestly don't see why Halo is rated M.

Also, there are more important issues to deal with, of which are not video games. Some of these issues are actual violence, and I believe that this actual violence can be more damaging than mock violence; some children have to deal with abusive parents, bullies, peer pressure, etc. I even feel that the generally accepted nonabusive physical punishment can play a role here, given that it can cause negative side-effects in children's lives, such as low-self esteem, aggression, fear and resentment of parents, etc. Drugs can also cause hallucinations and other such things that put one out of his/her normal mind. These are bigger problems than video games.

Personally, I find the ages 17+ for a "mature" rated game quite absurd; long before age 17, everyone already knows what sex and gore are, so why put that age limit? I personally feel that the main reason they put that limit is due to the fact that people that age will actually have ID to prove their age. I must note that age does not determine maturity, and there is no magical transformation at age 17 in maturity. In fact, the most immature people I see tend to be around college-age or older!!! I feel that the whole M-rating age is too extreme (and I am 19 years old, so this is not some rant of an "immature" teenager). I believe that these M-rated games should be kept away from younger children, but I seriously doubt that they would cause much harm for a teen, given that all teens know what sex and violence are. I feel that the ratings description should include what things are in the game, but I find ages 17+ a little too extreme due to the aforementioned reasons.
"The peoples of the world will pay for the historic crime of reformism with new wars and revolutions."
-Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, p.7
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: In Defense of Genuine Marxism

Unread postby Rhiannon » Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:26 pm

Well, it's not always a matter of knowing what sex and violence are; it's often having a mature understanding of the context that these things are used in.

Take GTA: San Andreas. That game is definitely mature for sex, language, drugs, and violence. Of course a 15 year old knows about these things; I don't deny that. But does a 15 year old have the education and maturity to understand the social and historical context of the game? Do they understand the culture of the area? Do they understand the culture of gangs? Do they have a broader knowledge of things to understand that the game isn't all about committing crime, cussing, and getting laid?

Some do, certainly. But this is why I think the maturity label is a good thing to have in place. Parents need to be aware of these issues present in the game; likewise, there should be a prevention of children who don't understand these issues to keep away from them. Ultimately, it should be a discussion between parent and child to determine whether the child's ready to play such a game or not. Had GTA: San Andreas come out when I was 15, my father would have discussed it with me a bit, and then I probably would have been allowed to play; this isn't because I was "specially mature for my age"; it was because I was born and raised near Los Angeles and understood the issues involved in San Andreas pretty intimately. Watching Andy play the game now is pretty close to home for me; overexaggerated in violence, yes, but still close to home.

That, of course, is where videogames can possibly cause violence too of their own right, though I think that those children affected in such a way are of a miniscule minority. Not having a clear understanding of a game (ie, not being able to seperate reality from fiction, and understanding the fiction from the point of view of reality) can cause one to imitate the game, in play or seriously, because one doesn't understand the reasons behind the violence.
"For us to have self-esteem is truly an act of revolution and our revolution is long overdue."
— Margaret Cho
User avatar
Joy & Oblivion
Joy & Oblivion
Posts: 5268
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 10:10 pm


Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved