Violent Games and Minors

[Serephino]

We also played in the mud, rode bikes without helmets, stayed out after dark without our parents knowing where we were, and talked to strangers ... all taboo now.

It's amazing we survived......

[Wolfy]

It's amazing we survived......

Well..most of us, anyway.

Poor Bob...died in a tragic mud-pie accident.

[mystictiger]

I had no idea what a mud pie was. I therefore had a look on Wikipedia:

Mississippi mud pie, a type of dessert
non-edible pies made, usually by children for fun, of mud
The code name of the game Uru: Ages Beyond Myst
anal creampie, the sexual act

Of these, two are surreal, one is unlikely, and the last is... well... just nasty. You clearly had very open-minded parents! ;)

[Oniya]

Mississippi mud pie is basically a chocolate mousse in a pie shell, or a chocolate pudding in a pie shell.  Very tasty.

The one that kids made in my day was just dirt and water, molded into a flat round, and 'served' on those little plastic tea-party plates.  No one was supposed to actually eat them.

Now-a-days, Play-Dough has taken the place of mud.

[Wolfy]

Mississippi mud pie is basically a chocolate mousse in a pie shell, or a chocolate pudding in a pie shell.  Very tasty.

The one that kids made in my day was just dirt and water, molded into a flat round, and 'served' on those little plastic tea-party plates.  No one was supposed to actually eat them.

Now-a-days, Play-Dough has taken the place of mud.

Which is something I don't understand.

if they say not to eat it, Why are most toys that mold play-doh...USED TO MOLD IT INTO FOOD?! WHAT THE HELL.

[Oniya]

To be fair, the stuff is non-toxic.  So, if you did eat it, it wouldn't kill you.  As for the molds, I'm pretty sure that's more a function of watching what kids made with it free-form and then making something they could sell that would do the same job.  Rolling it into snakes = Fun Factory.  Squishing it onto a doll's head = Fuzzy Pumper Barber Shop.  Rolling it into balls and squishing it flat = pancakes, hamburgers, tacos, cookies, etc.

[Jude]

Listen to the first bit of this:  http://gameinformer.com/b/podcasts/archive/2010/11/04/game-informer-show-46-supreme-court-kinect-bond-games.aspx

[dominomask]

To be fair, the stuff is non-toxic.  So, if you did eat it, it wouldn't kill you.  As for the molds, I'm pretty sure that's more a function of watching what kids made with it free-form and then making something they could sell that would do the same job.  Rolling it into snakes = Fun Factory.  Squishing it onto a doll's head = Fuzzy Pumper Barber Shop.  Rolling it into balls and squishing it flat = pancakes, hamburgers, tacos, cookies, etc.

Which does make an interesting connection back to the original point of this thread...specifically the "chicken or egg" side of the "game violence" debate.

For example, when I was little, we played lots of pretend games (the vast majority, really) that involved "guns" "knives" "swords" "war" "torture" "missiles" and various other forms of killing, arresting, punishing, or otherwise defeating our imaginary foes or each other.  We actively collaborated on schemes that probably would have made any adult listening rather squeamish about whether we were little fledgling psychotics.  But the emotional process, the habituation to violence, aggression, and malice that fearful or manipulative law-makers assume from video games, just never happened.  It was just a convenient dramatic backdrop for the things we WERE taking away from it...teamwork, physical fitness, imagination, strategy (rainbows, light, goodness, nostalgia, anecdotal evidence yatta yatta yatta).  Contention and force are just things that kids are interested in, we played with them, and so (to my thinking) toys were created to cater to that play.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that violent video games *may* have an effect on *certain* children, but there need to be a lot of things chronically going wrong in that kid's life before pretend violence would encourage real violence. 

[Cibille]

IMO, I just find it ridiculous, especially since alot of the people who might support it are like...50+ years old (IE: past when games started really becoming popular).

It's the parents responsibility if they don't think their son can handle something. If violent video-games were an issue, then our crime rates would have been steadily going up since the 80s now that video-games are very mainstream instead of going down.

Personally, I watched South Park and played Halo when I was like eight. I did play fights. I'm not some sociopath because of that.

[Oniya]

Amusing comment here:  When getting assigned to a counselor the first time at the clinic, my roommate was explaining bipolar disorder to the (obviously not a shrink) clinician.  ('So, are you manic, or depressed?' You get the picture.)

She described how she was diagnosed, and that she had been quite violent as a child (before video games).  She was then asked if she still had these violent impulses.   She admitted that she did, but that when she gets them, she goes off and plays Resident Evil or Burnout.

'Oh, so you have an outlet!'

[mystictiger]

This thread is starting to remind me about the concern that was felt about D&D. In fact, as a much younger mystictiger (Mysticcub perhaps?) my parents sat me down and tried to warn me off D&D because they were concerned it would promote satanism or suicide.

Now if only I could cast a fireball spell IRL, things would occaisonally be so much easier I grant you. And I could count on guaranteed employment by the British military (No ammo costs!).

I suspect the reason is that you occaisonally end up with crap parents, and it is always a dificult thing to tell a parent to do better from the outside. Far easier to blame teachers / society / D&D / milk / violent video games. I would be more inclined to believe that -bad- videogames are a cause for more social ills. I was so disappointed with Civ5 that I was almost transported into a fit of psychopathic rage!

[Oniya]

This thread is starting to remind me about the concern that was felt about D&D. In fact, as a much younger mystictiger (Mysticcub perhaps?) my parents sat me down and tried to warn me off D&D because they were concerned it would promote satanism or suicide.

My parents gave me the same talk!  They wanted me to talk to our parish priest about it.  I said they had to spend equal time talking with one member of my gaming group.

Yeah, neither conversation ever happened.

[Valerian]

When I worked in a bookstore, I once spent half an hour convincing the wife of a county prosecutor that letting her 15-year-old son play D&D with his friends wasn't going to turn him from a straight-A student into a raving delinquent.  I'm not entirely sure she believed me when I said I'd played for years, but she did buy the books, at least.

[Soran]

I think one of the biggest issues with games and mature content is the level of realism that consoles and PC's can relate to the screen, not so much with the player getting shot while continuing to mow down their aggressors, but just how violent acts as well as sexual are portrayed.
I'll be honest, I do think there does need to be some sort of shake up in the law, but at the end of the day, even if one child is forbidden to play a certain game at home, one of their mates is bound to have it.
Using services like steam and live are one way to try and restrict under age buying and playing...a lot of games require me to be logged on to access my save games, but if the minor knows the relevant passwords........

What does grind my gears (tm Peter Griffin) is that publishers and developers suffer because parents/retailers buy/sell these games to whomever regardless of the ESRB rating.

*sigh* There is no easy answer to this problem. Perhaps digital distribution only,  is a better answer than most, but nowhere near a perfect one.

[mystictiger]

In retrospect, I wish that my folks -had- succeeded in talking me out of playing D&D. Then I wouldn't have the eternal shame of knowing what THAC0 is. In the event that I ever have to have a conversation about D&D or violent computer games with any child of mine, it'll go along the following lines:

"Don't play D&D. It's rubbish. Certainly not 4th Edition. Play 7th Sea instead. And while we're on the topic of violent hobbies? Go and do fencing rather than playing violent computer games. That way you'll actually have the bruises and get some physical exercise. Lastly, if you want to go and play a modern-combat or world-war game, I want you to be able to explain to me what the Martens Clause is."

God, I'll make such a terrible parent.

[Oniya]

God, I'll make such a terrible parent.

Mr. Oniya takes the little Oni out to LARPs with him.  She has been given instruction on the two non-negotiable rules:  1) Only play with people that want to play, and 2) No headshots.  So far, the only fallout has been one time when the teacher caught her making a finger-gun *holds index and thumb in an L and makes 'pew-pew' noises*.  We told the little Oni to go back to the boffer-swords.

[Jude]

Although there are numerous games out there that have sexual content, they are by far the vast minority of games.  Furthermore, usually when sexual content is present, it is not interactive in any way shape or form.  The only exception to this I can even think of off the top of my head may not in fact be an exception (because I've never played the game, just heard about it) and that's in God of War.  Hot Coffee is not an legitimate example, though it is the most-often cited, because it requires execution of unauthorized code (hacking) to make it happen -- something which is not legally doable on every modern system.  You can't hold the developers accountable for what happens when players take it upon themselves to modify the game.

Even in games which do have interactive sexual content, it's absolutely nothing compared to what's out there on the internet.  There are flash games which include graphic BDSM depictions that are impossible to put age protections on.  You can't be for regulating one form of interactive media and against regulating another without being a hypocrite; it doesn't make sense to attack retail games and then freeware stuff hanging in the wind.

In order to truly keep children from obtaining violent video games there would have to be a crackdown on all forms of interactive media.  This means a huge program to censor the internet and control the flow of information.  Piracy would have to be stopped through aggressive enforcement of draconian copyright laws.  All of this would require a massive usurpation of power by government, and to what aim?  Studies show mixed results on whether or not violent games are actually harmful to children.

I wonder if it's even possible to balance restricting the flow of these games to children with the rights of developers and gamers.  I think that no matter what law we end up with, it will either be too intrusive or ineffectual -- there doesn't seem to be any middle ground.  Until scientific evidence actually narrows to a conclusion on the subject, passing legislation isn't just presumptuous, but the has the potential to be harmful without making any gains.

[Alsheriam]

I've been playing violent games since I was 6, and I'd like to think that I lead a rather healthy, normal life. :P It's all up to effective parenting, really, because I'm not banned from such media, so I don't get any special craving for violent media and I was taught from the beginning to differentiate what is real and what is fantasy.

But then again, some people have been arguing that video games (esp. shooters) turn people into more effective killers, and I think I can concur with that. I used to be a prolific FPS gamer in this Asia Pacific region (member of the top Battlefield 2/2142 team in the region) and my Lieutenant remarked to me after I won the second consecutive Company Best Shot award that FPS gamers tend to be better shooters. I live in a country where civilian ownership of firearms is banned outright and the only time I managed to get my hands on a real firearm was the army. I never had any prior hunting experience or anything like that, but handling a rifle felt natural to me because holding the pistol grip and pulling back the trigger correctly (nice and easy, a most important part of effective marksmanship) was as familiar as a Playstation/Xbox controller.

Also, the idea of killing another person was rather desensitized to me. I've grown so accustomed to shooting and taking down man-shaped figures in a virtual environment that I felt nothing when we had to do the same thing during training. Headshots were simulated by the shooting of watermelons and we felt nothing about that, too.

[Oniya]

Not even the waste of a good watermelon?

[Cibille]

The idea that videogames make you a better killer is completely ridiculous. At most, maybe an FPS could help boost reflexes. Or a mil-sim may help you with tactics, maybe.

Unfortunately, I haven't shot a gun, but playing an arcadey, action or even mil-sim FPS will not make me a better shooter.

Maybe back when videogames or tabletop games were very new, they just had a bad habit of attracting people on the fringes of society, so maybe it was a negative side-effect. But games in general do not make us more violent, or our crime rates would have been going up since the 1980s instead of down.

[Alsheriam]

The idea that videogames make you a better killer is completely ridiculous. At most, maybe an FPS could help boost reflexes. Or a mil-sim may help you with tactics, maybe.

Unfortunately, I haven't shot a gun, but playing an arcadey, action or even mil-sim FPS will not make me a better shooter.

Maybe back when videogames or tabletop games were very new, they just had a bad habit of attracting people on the fringes of society, so maybe it was a negative side-effect. But games in general do not make us more violent, or our crime rates would have been going up since the 1980s instead of down.

:P

Oh, no. I'm not saying that games make people go mad or something. But as a conditioning tool, I want to point out that people who say that holding a Playstation/Xbox controller is like holding a gun shouldn't be outright dismissed and laughed at. While of course it's silly to automatically assume that people who play videogames are automatically going to have the unquenchable thirst to shoot everyone in sight in the physical reality, I want to say that this point of view does have a modicum of truth in it. Coming from Singapore where the entire male population has to serve their two years mostly in the army, I think my observation does hold water when in general, the trend has gone such that it's mostly the decent gamers who turn out to be better shooters than the non-gamers.

Granted, marksmanship is only part of what makes a good soldier, and overall, I will not be afraid of admitting that I wasn't the best soldier around. What I mostly did as a brigade-level signals operator was to sit in cushy vehicles with the big officers and man the radio. But it was pretty hilarious to find that one of the least combat-effective people (me) could shoot a rifle better than most of the real combatants.

Also, my point on video games desensitizing the stuff about killing also holds water, too. The US military was having trouble with conscripts who couldn't accept the idea of shooting a fellow human being. Some did not shoot at all. Some did shoot but shot into the horizon instead of the actual targets. Trainers then found out that recruits were given bulls-eye targets for marksmanship, so to get them used to the idea of shooting another fellow human being, man-shaped targets (painted on with facial and uniform features for added realistic effect) were introduced and subsequent recruits became more combat-effective as a result. (http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield/)

[Cibille]

Live-fire training is completely different from sitting on a couch and using your controller to "shoot" at some pixels.

Unless you can actually prove it beyond some observation you made, I really don't believe it at all.

[Alsheriam]

Live-fire training is completely different from sitting on a couch and using your controller to "shoot" at some pixels.

Unless you can actually prove it beyond some observation you made, I really don't believe it at all.

Then I don't think you bothered to read my posts in their entirety. How annoying. Allow me to quote myself for your benefit.

holding the pistol grip and pulling back the trigger correctly (nice and easy, a most important part of effective marksmanship) was as familiar as a Playstation/Xbox controller.

Quite a lot of untrained people who've never fired a firearm in their life tend to slap back the trigger forcefully, making the barrel jerk up and of course, make their shots miss. Playing FPS games that involve aiming down the sights like the popular Call of Duty or Battlefield games get people accustomed to the idea of acquiring targets promptly after looking down those sights. Some people grip the pistol grip too tightly because they get nervous and that also affects marksmanship. Seasoned gamers tend to hold controllers with a relaxed grip and pull those triggers back nice and easy.

[Jude]

I have no doubt that someone who has played a hardcore FPS like Call of Duty is a step closer to being a killing machine than a person who has never done so all other things equal.  The thing is, that is a very tiny step, such a small distance that worrying about it is utterly pointless.

I know it's completely anecdotal and worthless to take as a piece of overarching evidence, but when Penn and Teller on their show had a kid who was bigtime into FPSes fire an actual weapon on a firing range the kid started crying afterward.  He found the experience of using a real gun very traumatic because it clearly wasn't a fantasy where video games are.

Personally, I shot guns when I was a child because I was in Boyscouts, and let me tell you, that brought me miles closer to being a trained killer than any experience with Call of Duty has, and I still don't think it was dangerous for me to do that.

For some kids, it would've been.  Some kids will all of this will have a different effect on.  However, if the overall rate of violence is any measure, such children are incredibly rare, and worrying about them is like pretending that a statistical anomaly is the majority.

[Brandon]

The interfaces of video games and the act of firing a weapon are completely different things. I served in the US army for many years and have operated a variety of weapon types including but not limited to Pistol, assault rifle, light machinegun, sniper rifle, shotgun, heavy machinegun, and sub-machinegun. As a training tool for operating such weapons video games are very bad. Even with vibration on the feel of recoil isnt the same, making people over or under adjust aim. Aiming is highly irregular as well, if video games were used as a teaching tool it would only teach to aim with ones eyes, not with the whole body and all of the senses. At best they can help people train their reaction times but as far as teaching people how to fire, no. Its about the worst training tool I can think of