should you be able to do anything in a crpg?

[mkreku]

The mods here are perfect. They will do what is just, and they can see that Mkreku flamed me personally unprovoked. I'm only guilty of replying in kind because I believe in self defense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am guessing we'll soon find out who is trying to discuss and who is purely trolling..

 

I firmly believe we do have to 'censor' the world to protect the weakest among us. It's all about weighing pros and cons, and in this case I think it's better to create a nuisance for many, for the protection of the few. The water analogy isn't really valid since water is here to stay, but computer games is, after all, a human creation and we have within our power to change it if a problem arises. I am not saying I want to change it (as I am undecided in the matter) , just pointing out how the comparison was flawed.

[Musopticon?]

To mkreku:

For the lack of better discussions to take part on; I'll make a question.

What in your opinion is enough when "protecting the weakest"? In general sense of course.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I firmly believe we do have to 'censor' the world to protect the weakest among us. It's all about weighing pros and cons, and in this case I think it's better to create a nuisance for many, for the protection of the few.

 

 

Well, then I must inform you that in our public libraries there are thousand upon thousand of books containing descriptions of anything from incest to genocide, and these books are avilable for anyone to just walk in there and read! Even borrow and take it home! I just read this piece of utter filth written by some english bloke called Shakespeare, it was filled to the brim with murder, transexuality and complete madness! How can we sit by and let this continue under our very noses? It must be stopped, for the good of all.

 

 

 

 

see? :D

[mkreku]

What in your opinion is enough when "protecting the weakest"? In general sense of course.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no general line to draw and when to say enough. In the matter of computer games, I am undecided. I think that perhaps these age limits we already have on games might be a good idea, but then you're basically saying, "Game developers, do whatever you want, the responsibility now lies entirely with the parents". As we all know, some parents are not as good as others, so that might not be enough. The other obvious way is censorship, but we already tried that (with movies) in Sweden, and I believe that's too much, as censoring always becomes too general and start affecting things they were never meant to touch. Also, I believe censorship hampers creativity. I believe in some middle ground that some genius has yet to come up with.

 

Of course, there are numerous other cases where I have an opinion on where to draw the line for protecting the weakest (as in prescription drugs, bicycle helmets, alcohol, driver's license, and so on) but I am guessing noone's interested in hearing about those

 

Edit: I saw Kaftan's post after writing this, but read above and you'll know my opinion on books. I don't want censorship, although since I've read Bret Easton Ellis "American Psycho", I am almost inclined to agree with those who wants books to have an age limit too

[Musopticon?]

Extreme censorship hampers creativity, but thoughtful does not. I agree.

 

Tack.

[Squidget]

The issue with violent/evil acts in video games is somewhat more complicated than a lot of people here seem to think.

 

Like it or not, believe it or not, we are affected by what we see. People who play violent video games do tend to be more aggressive than those who do not (source.) If you expose children to violent games they do tend to behave more violently on the playground. The two days after a heavyweight prizefight in the United States there is a 9% great homocide rate, and after a reported suicide or suicide drama on TV more people actually take their lives.

 

That said - Doom 3 does not make its players into murderers. While a fair percentage of murderers might play violent video games, only a tiny percentage of video game players are likewise muderers. While the evidence indicates that video games increase aggression or agressive solutions to conflicts, there is nothing inherently wrong or dangerous about aggression in our socities unless it is taken to very unusual extremes (ie: actual murder or assault).

 

The increase in aggression games provide is not inherently dangerous to its players or to society so long as it remains just that. Naturally there are people who will commit murder and a fair portion of them will probably play violent games or even draw inspiration from them, but in the end it is the person that will commit the crime, and the other influences are their life that are at fault for their actions. Millions of people can play video games without harmful effects - thus, it stands somewhat to reason that the people who commit crimes because of video games are doing so because they are the sort of people to commit crimes, not because the video game has warped their mind.

 

I am in full agreement with those who have posted that video games can promote or aggrivate aggressive behavior - but that conclusion should not, IMHO, provide an answer to the question originally posed.

 

There is no sense in going to the developers of a game complaining about an insane person injuring themself with the game as inspiration than there is in going to the manufacturer of a knife and complaining because somebody commited murder with the knife. It is not the developer's responsibility of their products are misused, and neither they nor the general public should have to pay the price any more than any other artist. Concepts like rape and murder should be included or not includeded based on gameplay and whether people would enjoy them, not some hypothetical insane individual that would injure themselves or others after seeing such occur in a video game.

 

In the end, the best we can ask the developers and publishers to do is to ensure that every individual is informed enough to make their own decisions about whether or not it is safe for them to play games. For those individuals incapable of making their own decisions we can only hope that society will have means to prevent them from making harmful decisions, whether those means consist of good parenting, psychiatrists, or mental hospitals. However, that burden falls on the shoulders of the government, and should not be brought to the game developer's door.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

EUROPEAN VOLUNTARY AGE-RATING ASSESSMENT FORM

 

SECTION I - PRODUCT DETAILS

 

 

PRODUCT TITLE

PUBLISHER

PRODUCT FORMAT(s)*

APPROXIMATE RELEASE DATE

SYNOPSIS OF PRODUCT

 

* if game content or presentation differs significantly from format to format , please submit separate forms for each format

 

SECTION 2 - COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL LAWS

 

1. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ISFE VOLUNTARY AGE RATING SYSTEM MAY NOT BE USED FOR TERRITORIES WHERE A PRODUCT

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Like it or not, believe it or not, we are affected by what we see.  People who play violent video games do tend to be more aggressive than those who do not (source.) 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You would think they could come up with something a bit more recent considering how much graphics have improved since then. I was reading some research where they called missile command a violent game and centipede a less violent one. Oh and Zaaxon whatever that is.

[Guest Fishboot]

Like it or not, believe it or not, we are affected by what we see.  People who play violent video games do tend to be more aggressive than those who do not (source.) 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On thing I don't like about that round of violence studies is that they either simply correlate long term aggressiveness with self-reporting about violent video game habits (which can obviously be turned around) or by analyzing very short term emotional effects of gaming. To the latter I say, big deal, half the people walking out of Rocky in 1976 were head-bobbing and throwing punches at the air - but did it condition them to become boxers?

 

Anyway, I'm not irreversibly hostile to the idea that video games have lasting, subtle psychological impacts on people - frankly, I believe it. But the prejudices against games are strong enough that I want fastidious evidence before I start calling for my own favorite hobby to be censored to protect the minds of morons.

[mkreku]

There is no sense in going to the developers of a game complaining about an insane person injuring themself with the game as inspiration than there is in going to the manufacturer of a knife and complaining because somebody commited murder with the knife.  It is not the developer's responsibility of their products are misused, and neither they nor the general public should have to pay the price any more than any other artist.  Concepts like rape and murder should be included or not includeded based on gameplay and whether people would enjoy them, not some hypothetical insane individual that would injure themselves or others after seeing such occur in a video game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This, to me, is going too far in the opposite direction of censorship. Yes, there is sense in going to the developers of a game to complain, if the game in question warrants it. We must not forget that we live in a society where everyone has equal value, but not everyone is equal. Putting the responsibility in the hands of few is always riskier than having a network (called a society in this case) of interests involved. I don't understand why people seem to underestimate the power of the computer games media. Try an easy experiment sometime: ask a young kid to describe something in detail he could not have possibly seen in real life and analyze what he is describing. For example, ask a computer games playing kid what happens if you shoot someone at close range in the head with a Desert Eagle. I am sure he'll paint a pretty vivid picture, but how many of the details he describes comes from reality and how many comes from the images he has picked up through news, movies and.. videogames? Bodies aren't flung back from pistol shots, cars don't explode when colliding/getting shot at, you cannot hide behind a wooden door when someone shoots at you, and so on. We puzzle together our view on reality from what we pick up from every medium out there. And that includes Manhunt, the GTA-series and Counterstrike.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

On thing I don't like about that round of violence studies is that they either simply correlate long term aggressiveness with self-reporting about violent video game habits (which can obviously be turned around) or by analyzing very short term emotional effects of gaming. To the latter I say, big deal, half the people walking out of Rocky in 1976 were head-bobbing and throwing punches at the air - but did it condition them to become boxers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Whats the bet some of them did?

 

People are very protective when it comes to their children you only have to look at the MMR vaccine to see just how little reality matters to public perception.

 

So to me, the last thing we would want as gamers is to add more fuel to the fire just to have even more extreme violence.

 

If anyone does actually find a study specific to RPGs and the effect they can have , would they link it pls.

[mkreku]

If anyone does actually find a study specific to RPGs and the effect they can have , would they link it pls.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is very difficult to find up-to-date research on the matter, since a normal research cycle (in Sweden) takes about 4-5 years (when you're on a research scholarship) and by the end of the study, the games and the technology described is already obsolete. It really should be a study-in-progress at all times, as the games are getting more and more life-like and realistic all the time.

[Darque]

You should be able to do all the good or evil you want in a game if...

 

1) It fits the setting (Shooting Sprees fit in Fallout, but not in Final Fantasy)

 

2) There are checks and balances to compensate (like the bounty hunters in Fallout)

 

Do the crime, do the time kinda things.

[Squidget]

Undeniably, my source was fairly old. It was the result of a few minutes of googling in order to find an online study. I have sources for my other facts and can post them if people like, but they're in literature form so it would be titles rather than a link.

 

This, to me, is going too far in the opposite direction of censorship. Yes, there is sense in going to the developers of a game to complain, if the game in question warrants it. We must not forget that we live in a society where everyone has equal value, but not everyone is equal. Putting the responsibility in the hands of few is always riskier than having a network (called a society in this case) of interests involved. I don't understand why people seem to underestimate the power of the computer games media. Try an easy experiment sometime: ask a young kid to describe something in detail he could not have possibly seen in real life and analyze what he is describing. For example, ask a computer games playing kid what happens if you shoot someone at close range in the head with a Desert Eagle. I am sure he'll paint a pretty vivid picture, but how many of the details he describes comes from reality and how many comes from the images he has picked up through news, movies and.. videogames? Bodies aren't flung back from pistol shots, cars don't explode when colliding/getting shot at, you cannot hide behind a wooden door when someone shoots at you, and so on. We puzzle together our view on reality from what we pick up from every medium out there. And that includes Manhunt, the GTA-series and Counterstrike.

 

Very true, but I don't think it makes the point you were trying to make.

 

We tend to create our view of reality from what we see in the real world first, and fiction second. If we see mages throwing fireballs in the fictional world and no mages throwing fireballs in the real world, then we will assume that there are not actually any mages that can throw fireballs in anything but fiction.

 

On the other hand, if we have experience with something that we nevertheless know to be reality (ie: we've never actually seen someone shot in the head with a pistol, but we know it happens) then we do tend to use fiction to fill in the gaps. We assume things happen as they do on the cop show because we have no real life events to compare it to.

 

Moral implications in games fall into the first category. That is, children and adults are generally given a certain set of morals to follow in real life (don't hurt or kill people, ect) and when the game offers a different sort of morals ("Killing people is okay") then they will generally reject those morals in favor of what they know to be the real world. Likewise, someone who takes their real-world morals from a shoot-em-up game is no more well adjusted than someone who takes other portions of their reality from a game and actually thinks that mages exist who can throw fireballs.

 

And in the end, it is the moral implications that are considered a danger to society. It is the idea of a person commiting murder because they saw it in a game that scares people. Thinking that someone will fly back a certain why if they are shot in the head isn't remotely dangerous to society. It is only dangerous to think that shooting people in the head is somehow 'okay.'

 

Likewise, when people commit crimes in the real world it tends to be because they have, in whatever way, been trained in a different set of morals by their family life, drug use, ect. If real life has taught them that hurting people is okay then video games might reinforce that, but if video games send a different message than it will not end up changing their real life morals. More likely they just won't play those video games, or will play them for fun the same way non-violent people can play violent video games just for fun.

 

And even assuming the point you are attempting to make is valid - what exactly do you suggest developers do about it, bearing in mind that heavily restricting their content to a certain audience based on a tiny minority is coming heavily out of their own pocket?

[Squidget]

Anyway, I'm not irreversibly hostile to the idea that video games have lasting, subtle psychological impacts on people - frankly, I believe it. But the prejudices against games are strong enough that I want fastidious evidence before I start calling for my own favorite hobby to be censored to protect the minds of morons.

 

Agreed heartily. I am strongly against all games being censored for the very tiny minority who will do serious harm with the games as inspiration (but would probably have done so anyway.) That is what I meant above when I said "Taking things to the developer's door." Censoring games is not the answer any more than we should stop producing cars because car accidents exist. I do think that there are effects on 'most people' from playing or viewing violent media, but I don't think those effects are major or particularly dangerous to society. They just are.

 

I think it is worthwhile for gamers and developers to be made aware that these sorts of things can have effects and what forms those effects can take, and leave people responsible for making their own decision about whether or not they want to partake in that kind of media.

[Azarkon]

Extreme censorship hampers creativity, but thoughtful does not. I agree.

 

Tack.

 

Almost every form of legal censorship is extreme, by necessity. Thoughtful censorship occurs at the social and economic levels with what is actually being created and released, and what is economically feasible.

 

I am always fearful of general censorship laws, and laws involving censorship are always overly general.

[Musopticon?]

"laws involving censorship are always overly general."

 

They're so because of necessity. With so much "sencorable" stuff out there nowadays, officials are hard-pressed to form laws whose confines are bendy enough to be flexible with different situation, but at the same time frim enough to not be open form debate.

[mkreku]

I know I am pulling stuff out of context here (sorry, Squidget), but I really need to sleep.

 

And in the end, it is the moral implications that are considered a danger to society.  It is the idea of a person commiting murder because they saw it in a game that scares people.  Thinking that someone will fly back a certain why if they are shot in the head isn't remotely dangerous to society.  It is only dangerous to think that shooting people in the head is somehow 'okay.'

The head example was only used as an example to clearly illustrate how a computer game can help to shape our view of the world. If a videogame can 'trick' us into thinking a body flops backwards when shot, what's to say it couldn't trick us into believing (or subconsciously feeling) other things too? How can we be sure that a 12 year old kid isn't picking up his "right or wrong's" from Manhunt? Personally I don't believe computer games can teach kids that shooting real life people in the head is ok, but I almost wish they could. Why? Because then the problem (if there even is one) would be out in the open. The most difficult problems to solve are the ones we don't know exist. We live in a highly violent society and noone can be sure where all this violence stems from.

 

And even assuming the point you are attempting to make is valid - what exactly do you suggest developers do about it, bearing in mind that heavily restricting their content to a certain audience based on a tiny minority is coming heavily out of their own pocket?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now this is where you got me. I don't know what I'd suggest! I am more or less hoping that someone more intelligent than me will come up with a solution that is acceptable on all accounts. Not. bloody. likely.

 

One other notable thing: You also write in your post that if games don't contain violence, the violent kids won't play those games, which would render the morality of the non-violent games useless. But when and why did we start associating violence with fun? Why do so many games contain such massive amounts of violence? When did game developers figure out that the audience wants excessive amounts of blood and gore?

[Squidget]

I know I am pulling stuff out of context here (sorry, Squidget), but I really need to sleep.

 

No worries.

 

The head example was only used as an example to clearly illustrate how a computer game can help to shape our view of the world. If a videogame can 'trick' us into thinking a body flops backwards when shot, what's to say it couldn't trick us into believing (or subconsciously feeling) other things too? How can we be sure that a 12 year old kid isn't picking up his "right or wrong's" from Manhunt? Personally I don't believe computer games can teach kids that shooting real life people in the head is ok, but I almost wish they could. Why? Because then the problem (if there even is one) would be out in the open. The most difficult problems to solve are the ones we don't know exist. We live in a highly violent society and noone can be sure where all this violence stems from.

 

Well, I'd say that if a kid (by some horrible turn of events) actually saw someone being shot in the head, then they probably wouldn't think that the bodies flopped backwards anymore. The real-world visual would 'override' the opinion they had after only seeing fiction.

 

It is certainly possible for people to be 'tricked' into believing something through watching fiction, but from what I can see it doesn't generally happen if we can see a direct real-world example to the contrary. If we see something happening in the fictional world and something else happening in the real world, we associate the second with reality and it becomes our world view.

 

In the real world we're constantly told that things like murder and assault are morally wrong, and if a kid is in a situation where they are not being told these things than they have bigger problems than a video game (IMHO.) As such, it stands to reason that they will take their morals from the things they are told in the real world rather than Manhunt, GTA, or similarly violent games.

 

Now this is where you got me. I don't know what I'd suggest! I am more or less hoping that someone more intelligent than me will come up with a solution that is acceptable on all accounts. Not. bloody. likely.

 

This is pretty much the issue I always run into trying to think about the problem from the perspective of a developer. That is, short of just not producing violent material (and paying the price for it), I don't really see much a developer can do to avoid this kind of thing.

 

There are things other people can do (stores could enforce ESRB ratings better, for example) but developers haven't got too many options.

 

One other notable thing: You also write in your post that if games don't contain violence, the violent kids won't play those games, which would render the morality of the non-violent games useless. But when and why did we start associating violence with fun? Why do so many games contain such massive amounts of violence? When did game developers figure out that the audience wants excessive amounts of blood and gore?

 

I wouldn't tie it to just games or even just our society.

 

Why do violent video games sell?

 

Same reason people watch violent TV shows and movies. Same reason we laugh when Elmer Fudd gets crushed with a gigantic rock. Same reason the colosseum events of Rome were attended by gigantic crowds of people. Same reason people watch Football and Boxing.

 

Because seeing violence happen to other people is entertaining for an awful lot of humans. Instinctual, I guess.

[Nartwak]

Elmer Fudd is shot with his own rifle. Wyle E. Coyote is crushed with a boulder. Get it right.

[Archmonarch]

I thought this would be relevant:

 

Debate over Video Game Violence

[Nartwak]

Good article Archmonarch.

[Child of Flame]

I would tentatively say a lot of the violence in society is a result of not only social problems (such as habits and actions being passed down from father to son), but also as a result of humans not expressing their natural agression in healthy ways in the extremely passive (if you play by the rules) society we live in.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Nice article, interesting reasding. I'd be more inclined to to the anit arguement more seriously if it wasnt so fanatical but anyways.

 

I think as more younger people start to get into the field the research will become more productive. The real problem would appear to be that technology simply moves too quickly for the studies to keep up.

[Weiser_Cain]

Yes but it should seem like it's your idea so you can be racked with guilt later.