metadigital

November 29, 2003. A rabid MMOG fan, known simply as Mr Jin, walks into a 24-hour internet caf

Oh. I see. And isn't controlling violent content in entertainment a way of containing the free spread of violence as a perfectly normal thing in our society? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Depends on the controlling mechanism and your definition of violence. It would be a very worthy game that made all the characters speak with utmost respect to each NPC; no scattological references or inappropriate language; no overt or implied verbal or physical violence. But would that really prevent a violent society? I put it to you that violence predates the video game industry by several millennia (at least), and there didn't seem to be a lack of violence -- even in Victorian society where prudish attitudes to manners reached a zenith. In fact, the Victorians were arguably the equal to the most violent conquerors in history. So I diagree with your stated conclusion. Sure. That's why the example was absurd. Everyone knows that cars are potentially deadly. But they are necessary for lots of things, and the motor industry is an important one. On the other hand, the gaming industry is already strong without the need for ultra realistic violence. And there is no benefit at all from having that kind of stuff, other than a marginal desire and the lust of some people for a "universal lack of censorship". There you have your risk-benefit calculation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> By your argument you could advocate banning cola drinks. They serve no purpose except to make a few corporate executives rich and oil the wheels of capitalism. Except Coca Cola, for one example, pours billions of dollars into sports sponsorship worldwide, which would help countless young people out of poverty. (Liberals are always saying that the cost of saving just one life is immaterial.) What does the game industry do? Well, for a nascent industry -- less than a quarter of a century old -- it has already given quite a lot back to society, but I would bet London bridge to a brick that it will give more. Don't forget that innovations from the gaming industry are used throughout society; who knows if one day we might be able to limit to very few actual sex workers, for example, where most of the interactions are with virtual models that are indestinguishable from RL? This would help take away the demand for sex work: the number one cause for so much misery in our world. (Fact: so many people are trapped in sex work because the demand is so high.) You can't get results like that without realism in games now. What's interesting is the "inelegant" way you have of twisting my argument. Obviously, game devs have no voice in what's acceptable in society, and I don't recall saying so. I thought I had already made it clear that drawing conclusions from my statements was my prerogative, but I digress. Game devs have full control over the contents they release. Right now, the only guidelines game studios follow are those laid by legislation and marketing studies. But there comes a point where ethics should come into play, too. As I said in my previous post, no amount of money would convince me to help develop a game in which you could do certain things. Self censorship? Call it what you will. For me it's more like acknowledging that one's work may have a significant impact on other people. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It already exists, but the problem with self censorship is that it is not reliable; it is not regulated and it is not consistent. What is acceptable to one developer is not the same as another: the developers of the JFK game, or Manhunt, obviously have a different threshold than most. By making legislation, it can be agreed by society and consistently applied (and contested in court, as necessary), rather than some magic "black box". I see you have masterfully dodged the question. Next time you don't feel like answering a question that makes you uncomfortable, just say so. You don't need to go off on a tangent like that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can answer the question; I have quite a rich imagination. Are you suggesting that under no circumstance there is any way that shooting a child is justified? Have you heard of the new game F.E.A.R.? I suppose you aren't familiar that 10% of rape in society is against men. Rape is not a sex crime, it is a crime of power: the exercise of one person's power (usually a disposessed or powerless individual) over another. I can think of many instances where this may be appropriate. Did you see Pulp Fiction? Did you like it? Many, many people did. Do you think it would be a better film without the rape scene?

Thanks for the link. What is clear is that Jack Thompson presents a poor case for rationality. He is portraying the extremist a little too well. His main complaint is that the ESRB is a rating label and not a warning label. Fine, fix the system and make the perpetrators rue their infringement. It's not like there aren't PUNITIVE DAMAGES in the US! He also degenerates into argumentum ad hominem and scare tactics, making an unflattering comparison between Doug Lowenstein and Saddam Hussein (I have very little time for people who conduct arguments like this and I see he was at least careful not to compare a man with a Jewish name to Hitler) and trying to whip up an emotional frenzy with warnings linking video game violence with Columbine. This is the worst sort of tabloid sensationalism, imo. On the other hand Henry Jenkins is arguing for more education and responsibility from parents, without which all initiatives are bound for failure. I know who's argument I am more likely to give heed to, regardless of my opinion.

[1]No. My arguments suggest nothing. They are what they are, don't draw conclusions from them. That's my prerogative. Using people with anger management issues was just an example, and a rather extreme one at that. The thing is, as you have already admitted that violent visual (books are only as explicit as you can imagine) entertainment desensitizes people to violence. That is a problem. [2]Banning cars would undoubtedly prevent lots of deaths. But the car industry is too important to shut down and the economic recession caused by doing so would be unimaginable. Not to mention that driving a car is not a violent act in itself, while violence in games, however fictional, is still violence. Yes, you are being absurd. [3]Oh, I agree. Prohibitions are useless. It should be an initiative on the developers' part. That's wishful thinking, though, since games are an industry, and as such is driven solely by profit. [4]Uh... so how exactly does the ability to rape, the ability to slaughter children with a minigun, the ability to abuse your wife boost your enjoyment of games? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. No, the problem is the violence in society, not the people becoming desensitized to it. Desensitization is (just another) defence mechanism. We need to address the root causes of violence inherrent in modern society, not band-aid the symptoms. 2. This is commonly called throwing the baby out with the bath water. The point I made, which you inelegantly avoided, is that it is impossible to eliminate risk. You will have to manage risk in some way, and that means a risk-benefit calculation must be made, not a knee-jerk reaction. The risk posed by high-risk hostile individuals is small because there are very few of them; just as there are few mass murderers for whom the motor vehicle is their weapon of choice. 3. So you advocate self-censorship? The gamedevelopers are in a better position than a) the legislative assembly, b) the judicial heirarchy and c) the general public to decide what is permissable in society? Interesting pov. 4. Depends on the game; if you are asking my to construct a scenario where one or all of those options is a viable plot, then that is an exercise in cretive writing, not moral rationalisation. I'm sure if you pushed yourself you would be able to come up with a suitable answer to your own question, or are you suggesting censorship? You seem to be arguing both sides.

Anecdotes aside, even the "quoted source" is cautious about making wide generalisations based on few clinical results. I read the underlying study and I highlight some abstracts that I think shed some light on the issues. (These are from the underlying clinical report, that is summarised in the link. Just download the pdf to read it -- it's less than twenty pages.) I do dispair at the sensationalist summary and first paragraph, which seems to fly in the face of the reasonable tone in the clincal report; statements like: On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold launched an assault on Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, murdering 13 and wounding 23 before turning the guns on themselves. Although it is impossible to know exactly what caused these teens to attack their own classmates and teachers, a number of factors probably were involved. One possible contributing factor is violent video games. Harris and Klebold enjoyed playing the bloody, shoot-'em-up video game Doom, a game licensed by the U.S. military to train soldiers to effectively kill. ... Now my understanding (albeit second-hand and mainly from Bowling for Columbine -- but that was a polemic against the endemic violence in US culture, so I would expect the bias to be against violence, not for it) is that this tragedy was more based on the teenagers feeling of futility based on their town being a munitions factory, rather than other factors. That said, let's press on: Test1: 278 students (78 male, 149 female) Test2: 210 students (104 male, 106 female) all from "a midwestern university" ... [page 778] ... Most of the participants were traditional freshmen and sophomores. The mean age was 18.5 years. The oldest participants were two 25-year-olds and two 24-year-olds. Data from the video game questionnaire provided information about their playing habits. Overall, participants reported playing video games progressively less from junior high school to college. Participants reported playing video games an average of 5.45 hours per week while in junior high school, 3.69 hours per week in early high school, and 2.68 hours per week late in high school. Presently, the students reported playing video games an average of 2.14 hours per week. Of the 227 students surveyed, 207 (91%) reported that they currently played video games. Of the 9% who do not play video games, 18 students, or 90% of the non-video game players, were women, Thus 88% of the female college students and 97% of the male college students surveyed were video game players. Participants were asked to list up to five favorite games. The mean number of games listed was 4.03, Over 69% listed five games, the maximum number allowed. ... These results are based on about 200 (I'd bet psychology first and second year) students from one US midwestern (I'd guess Missouri) university. That's a pretty narrow diversity to be extrapolating on. [page 779] ... Another interesting finding to emerge from data shown in Table 1 concerns GPA. Video game violence was negatively, but not significantly, related to GPA (r = -.08), but time spent playing video games in general was significantly and negatively correlated (r = - .20) with GPA. ... [page 775] ... RESEARCH ON VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE Although much research has examined the effects of exposure to movie and television violence (see Huesmann, 1994, for a review), and although popular press commentaries about possible effects of video games abound, the empirical literature on video game violence is sparse (see Dill & Dill, 1998; Ernes, 1997). There are less than half a dozen studies, over the last decade, quoted on the effects of violence from video sources (games and films). Video Games and Aggression: Correlational Work Four correlational studies have examined the relation between video game playing habits and real-world aggressive behavior. Across the four studies, the ages of participants ranged from 4th graders to 12th graders. Measures of aggression included self, teacher, and peer reports. Three of the studies (Dominick, 1984; Fling et al., 1992; Lin & Lepper, 1987) yielded reliable positive correlations between video game playing and aggression. The fourth (Van Schie & Wiegman, 1997) correlation did not differ from zero. But, none of the studies distinguished between violent and nonviolent video games. Thus, none test the hypothesis that violent video games are uniquely associated with increased aggression. Video Games and Aggression: Experimental Work The extant experimental studies of video games and aggression have yielded weak evidence also. Four studies found at least some support for the hypothesis that violent video game content can increase aggression (Cooper & Mackie, 1986; Irwin & Gross, 1995; Schutte, Malouff, Post-Gorden, & Rodasta, 1988; Silvern & Williamson, 1987). However, none of these studies can rule out the possibility that key variables such as excitement, difficulty, or enjoyment created the observed increase in aggression. In our experience with video games and in the movie literature (Bushman, 1995), violent materials tend to be more exciting than nonviolent materials, so the observed effects could have been the result of higher excitement levels induced by the violent games. Two additional experimental studies of violent video games and aggression found no effect of violence (Graybill, Strawniak, Hunter, & O'Leary, 1987; Winkel, Novak, & Hopson, 1987). Interestingly, of the six video game studies reviewed here, only the Graybill et al. (1987) study used games pretested and selected to be similar on a number of dimensions (e.g., difficulty, excitement, enjoyment). In sum, there is little experimental evidence that the violent content of video games can increase aggression in the immediate situation. Video Games, Aggressive Affect, and Cognition [page 776] Two studies have examined the effect of video game violence on aggressive cognition. Calvert and Tan (1994) randomly assigned male and female undergraduates to a condition in which they either played or observed a violent virtual-reality game or to a no-game control condition. Postgame aggressive thoughts were assessed with a thought-listing procedure. Aggressive thoughts were highest for violent game players. Although this supports our GAAM view of video game effects, we hesitate to claim strong support because it is possible that this effect resulted from the greater excitement or arousal engendered by playing the game, rather than the violent content of the game. More recently, Kirsh (1998) showed that 3rd- and 4th-grade children assigned to play a violent video game gave more hostile interpretations for a subsequent ambiguous provocation story than did children assigned to play a nonviolent game. This also supports GAAM. Five experiments have investigated the effects of video game violence on aggressive affect. One study showed increases in aggressive affect after violent video game play (Ballard & Weist, 1996). Another (Anderson & Ford, 1986) yielded mixed results. Three others (Nelson & Carlson, 1985; Scott, 1995; Calvert & Tan, 1994) showed little support for the hypothesis that short-term exposure to violent video games increases hostile affect. There are methodological shortcomings in many of these studies, which, when combined with the mixed results, suggest that there is little evidence that short-term exposure to violent video games increases aggression-related affect. To be clear, the clinicians of this test are saying that it is not clear whether aggression is increased from just playing any exciting game, like Tetris, and not just hostile ones. I tend to agree with the spirit of your post; it is more important to provide a sensible and reasonable game environment, where cultural ethics are rewarded in accordance with our beliefs, rather than a more dystopian or nihilistic enviroment. For example, I would rather see a game where some sort of "Cosmic Karma" will build up and reward players with both good and evil ethics, even if this is a debatable concept in the real world.

Maybe that's because the US is trying to keep their teenage pregnancy rate below that of the UK. Joke on curent affairs the other night: "And the government has announced plans to keep seventeen and eighteen year olds in college by allocating funds for an allowance. "This is ridiculous. What I want to know is: "Who's going to be picking up the toddlers from daycare at 3pm with all the teenagers in college?"

"Thanks" for simplifying my argument. I wasn't saying that if you murder someone in an ultra-realistic game you instantly become a psycho. However, violent acts are not commited with a cool head most of the times. People with anger management issues have very thin safeguards to prevent them from going berserk in a situation that tests their self-control. If such person is used to graphic, ultra-explicit violence, a violent act may not seem so out of place, since the "WTF am I doing?" threshold has been lifted somewhat. And people with anger management issues are not exactly rare. Note that I'm not against violent games. I was just arguing that "normal" people are not impervious to constant exposure to graphic violence, and that is a fact. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay, I'm not going to argue that people will be desensitized by exposure to violence in games. But violence in games is still totally different to violence in RL. Clicking a muse button to stab someone in the eye with a shard of glass in slow-mo is one thing; smashing a mirror, picking up a hard, serrated piece of it and aiming it into someone's face with your own hand, by now cut and bleeding, is another. I think the counter argument is more dangerous. Your arguments suggest that people with anger managment issues should be somehow restricted from excessive exposure to violence, and further, this will prevent them (for longer, presumably) from physically assaulting others. I think it is a convoluted and inelegant way to deal with the issue of anger management. People who have anger management issues should be dealt with, because even if violent video games are forbidden, then you must (naturally) forbid vioent films. And then we get to the issue of scale. How far do we go: banning violence in books? Maybe just for people with certified over-active imaginations and anger management issues? I am being absurd on purpose to make the point that we should target issues directly: anger management is a problem; in no small way is the frustration of driving contributing to this, for example, but I don't see anyone trying to ban cars to address anger issues. (And cars are the most deadly weapon most widely available to the most people.) To hide behind prohibition doesn't solve the core problem. And it stops me from enjoying a game.

Yes but those are cartoon games. K1 was a cartoon. At no point did anyone even get maimed; no blood, no gore, no orphans eating pets to survive, no prostitution of the underclass, nor religious pogrom of the minority. Children can see the difference. And I would have liked Mr Dastardly to win the Wacky Races once or twice -- and even catch that pigeon. (There was a Road Runner cartoon made where Wile E Coyote catches Road Runner, but it has been self-censored by Warner Bros and rarely shown. But that is an aesthetic reason, not a moral one.) You wouldn't sell many games where the protagonist is a murdering paedophile and the plot revolves around committing unspeakable crimes and ultimately escaping conviction. No one would want to play it, let alone buy it. The recent JFK game at least was (allegedly) trying to teach some historical background to the assassination of JFK. (And that was roundly ostracized.) Children aren't obtuse, and they aren't inherently more evil than adults. But they do have good BS detectors, and suffer hypocrisy not at all, like adults. Certainly, some themes are mature for a reason; sarcasm is not easy for a child to grasp (I remember my first encounter with it). That said, adult themes wouldn't be given to a child audience, by definition. (And you can't legislate for the exception to the rule.)

Other. I would prefer to be Obi-Wan on the prequels: have a Master, become a Knight, train a Padawan. (Maybe have that padawan go Dark and fight them later on. And cut off their arms and legs. And boil them in oil. And stuff. )

You could be right, but if palpatine is sooooooooooooo powerfull that he can obscure is presence even from yoda, why is he defeated so easelly by mace and yoda???? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe Palpie is strong in decepition but not offence. He is more an assassin than a soldier, to use an analogy. (Although I would say he is a different class altogether, like a "strategist" or "Machiavellian", say.) Even in the games, you have Consulars, Sentinels and Guardians: a Guardian is much better combatant than a Sentinel, and a Consular will wield Force Powers better than a Sentinel. And that's regardless of levels.

That is not made clear in the various ruminations of Atris and Kreia (and the Council members, for that matter) throughout the game. There is definitely a fear that destruction of the Force would destroy all life. But that's about as overt as it gets, we are left to decide whether the Force is in control of destiny, is sentient and provides free will or an illusion of it, whether life needs the Force or if indeed the Force is a parasite to life. Maybe being deaf to the Force would be a good thing, and Kreia was not insane. In fact, that must be it! Kreia IS the One True Prophet!

... or to be tortured by a sadist, Launchie? Taking our roleplay a bit far, aren't we? "

1. This should be in the technical forum. 2. I'm pretty sure it is a known bug. (I haven't had it happen to me, but in my perusal of the technical forum I have seen it mentioned several times.)

Some people are more prone and suggestable to outside sources than others. What I find interesting about metadigitals stance, is that he is perfectly willing to accept that a game could socialise a child in a positive way, but not in a negative way. To me that is completely illogical. At the heart of this is that RPGs should offer choice, you should not simply get to a point where crime = punishment. And logically if a child who witnesses crime being a punished in game would have a postive reinforcement, then one who constantly escapes "justice" in game would have a negative reinforcement. All of which would make the game as potentially harmful as it is benificial. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually I don't think the presentation of darker froms of abuse would have any effect at all. I was merely indicating that the best way to handle such delicate matters is in an idealist way. After all, as real as we want a game to be, almost everyone believes in some sort of cosmic justice, where "what goes around comes around", and we all therefore regard it as an essential that those who are willfully and deliberately evil to their fellow humans should and will be dealt some sort of appropriate come-uppance. To have an evil person "get away with it" might be more real, but it isn't going to sell many film tickets or game licences.

I think that religion in the US political arena is used as a trump card, a shot free of retaliation. Moral sanctimonious grandstanding. Hillary Clinton signalled that she was literate in the Republican rules by firing a shot across their bow wrt abortion. Instead of taking the traditional pro-choice stance, a trap that normally befalls those in opposition to the standard pro-life arguments, she instead hit the ball back into the Republican's court by suggesting that more needs to be done to prevent pregnancy in the first place; like education and free wide distribution of condoms. This had the immediate effect of causing the usually united strong anti-Democrat religious groups shiver with the beginnings of a schism, as the Roman Catholics railed against condoms, in addition to their episcopal partners' lack of revulsion to the method. The point is that Republicans aren't all religious anymore than all Democrats are secular. Religions wrt ethics and their faithful implementation are certainly worthy of debate, but to insist there is a religious party -- or a party with religious superiority -- is disingenuous to the point of corruption. When one group start invoking infallibility, for whatever reason, then I for one would have them disqualified from the argument. (This obviously doesn't preclude mutual agreement.)

Yep, it's due shortly after Sam & Max 2, which was also delayed.

No, Kreia is just Anti-Force. She hates the Force, because she sees it controlling the universe for its own agenda. The Force isn't good or evil, it is selfish. And it destroys the illusion of free will with its malevolent pre-destination of all things. That is why Kreia wants to destroy the Force. Why she loves the Exile, a Force Sensitive who turned away and survived (in contrast the frightened Jedi Council are not even prepared to contemplate this). Kreia seeks the death of the Force, and she sees an oppotunity in the Exile (the Wound), and the Force Bond between them, to precipitate a cascade overflow and destroy the Force. One presumes that some life would survive such a cataclysm (or else Kreia is truly insane beyond reach). What is not made clear is why Kreia needed to wait until the Jedi Conclave confrontation to precipitate the destruction of the Force ... surely if she were thusly insane and/or obsessed she would have just flown straight to M5 at the first opportunity. Anyway, don't forget here is a great plot summary: (<{POST_SNAPBACK}>).

I got the Atton speil on the PC. I think it works if you start two games, I don't know if you have to finish two ... then again I did finish a few, and I don't remember the exact chronology of the events.

same way Kreia does. I guess it is some sort of "Force Camouflage", where the Force Sight doesn't work. (Maybe a reverse, self-directed Force Breach type of thing.)

Yeah, I would have liked this to be some sort of random five out of eight planets, or something, where you have to find clues as to what planets to travel to on each of the other planets, too. That way it's not just "go planet, kill everyone whilst investigating every corner, then repeat". You actually have to think and plan and do a bit of detective work. The story of K2 wasn't in and of itself interesting enough, nor told in a compelling enough way, for it to captivate the audience and impel us towards the exciting conclusion. It was banality dressed up as sublime.

That's the point. And Jedi definitely don't do stealth. They should lose LS points if they attack an enemy whilst cloaked. Bad form. Not good cricket, etc. Let those mangey Sith do all the stealthy stuff, and let them use a stiletto, like they should.

Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel ... (w00t)

Except, of course the unbending Lawful Good. Then, under those black and white rules, there is no pov to discolour the Good and dilute the Evil. Unfortunately, not everyone is Lawful Good, and there is a lot of argument about the grey areas ...

" :D Planetfall was the infocom game where you had to restart the hibernating civilization with the help of a (cute) little robot pal that you find there. Baley, when are you going to review a game?

Not true. Frequent exposure to fictional (or real) violence tends to erode the psychological barriers that make violence something despicable and unacceptable in a given situation. Take for example a child whose father beats him and his mother on a frequent basis. It's likely the child will become an abuser himself. Obviously, games don't go that far, but they can act as a catalyst for violent behaviours in people that are not completely stable. But then again, many things can. The thing is that games are the only thing that allow for such interactivity in fictional violent acts. ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I would argue that's all supposition. At the turn of the century the most popular film was simply a train shot from front on hurtling at the audience. That's it. People in the audience would jump out of their seats to avoid what they thought was certain collision with the train their eyes told them was about to hit them. People didn't think that it was okay to stand in front of a steam locomotive and emulate the experience in RL. None. After a while, the audiences became savvy to this, and now we have CGI to try to make dynosaurs real and such in an ever-increasing gradient to mimick reality. It doesn't change the fact that one is real and one is not, however convincing we try to make it. Maybe one day we'll have a direct transfer of emotion to the cortex, or some equivalent, and maybe then it might start to get difficult to tell reality from virtuality. Not yet. Not by us, and not by children. I'd be pretty lonely out here.