Germany bans violent games

[Wrath of Dagon]

unless it is proven to advocate rape and molestation,

What do you call having the player perform those acts?

 

I hope you are not saying that committing an act in a video game will make you do the same acts in real life because that is what it sounds like you are implying. If so, I suggest you go seclude yourself from others, contact Jack Thompson, and stop posting here as clearly you would likely murder someone or commit some other horrible crime due to all of those

[Purkake]

Another German once said something like 'when they came for the communists, I did not speak. I was not a communist.' And then the poem goes on untill it ends with these words: 'when they came for me, there were noone left to speak up.'

 

This is how I feel when we speak censorship for videogames, or other things. If we'ew not carefull, banning videogames or censoring them too much will lead till more general cencorship later on....

 

And I ask again:

 

What is a violent game?

 

Is the adventure game Sherlock Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper violent...? Or are violent games just games like Call of Duty, GTA IV ? And what about RPGs like Mass Effect, Dragon Age: Origins or Fallout 3?

 

I thought it was the Jews that they came for.

 

It's really funny how they made the player models in Team Fortress 2 act like metal when shot.

 

Also, here's something to break all the tension:

Edited June 6, 2009 by Purkake

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Yes, I'm bigoted against rape and molestation and every other crime.

 

Therefore, you would not play, or support, a game that had you killing other people in cold blood, required you to steal, or otherwise commit a crime. Is that what you are saying? If so you must not have like, to name two examples, either KotOR or KotOR II – seeing as they contain all of the above and more. However, if you did enjoy those games then, yes, you are a hypocrite –id est a bigot- who is picking and choosing when to apply this seeming “moral high ground.”

 

You might want to look up what bigoted means.

 

Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.

 

Oh look, I happen to know what bigot means – maybe you should have thought about that before leaving yourself open to attack.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I don't see why it's such a big can of worms. It's rather clear that imagining something is never a crime. People aren't tried for potential crimes.

 

I agree.

[Hassat Hunter]

My god I've had it with do gooders and concerned parents stealing my gibs.

 

I find it sadder I lost my ability to kill children in games.

 

Also; it's of course obvious BS, like any of the anti-gamer laws trying to ban stuff.

[Rosbjerg]

What if we found a link between playing violent games and a substanial risk for later developing violent behaviour (say like 1 in 100).. Would you still play violent games?

 

I don't know where I stand on this issue to be honest.. I enjoy playing games like GTAIV etc and would hate for some politicians to take that away, but when I speak to 12-16 year olds who play these games - I'm worried what impact it has on them.. if it really does desensitizes them/us/me to violence..

[Kjarista]

Just to break up the group-think a bit, consider this:

 

Meta studies (studies of studies) tend to indicate that violent video games tend to promote aggressiveness, reduces the natural abhorrence of violence, making it easier to consider the use of violence, and a reduction in the desire to help others. The meta studies are clear in this. The younger the player, the more effect. What they don't know is if the effect lasts long term...beyond the gaming, and to what extent does predisposition of the player towards violence influenced the effect. A quick google would probably bring up all kinds of studies results.

 

It's pretty clear that preadolescent children should not be playing violent games. It's probably safe to say that kids under the age of mid teens shouldn't either. There is an effect on adults, but it seems that at that point, predisposition has a larger effect.

 

So, no, playing GTA isn't going to make people go out and shoot up the town. It might, however, empower subtle increases in aggression, which might have larger influence on players who are predisposed towards violence and aggression.

 

Censorship? I don't really see this as censorship, because it doesn't impact my freedom of speech or my freedom to express myself. I don't give this the moral equivalence of, say, getting hauled off in the middle of the night for publishing a rant against the government.

[Purkake]

Censorship? I don't really see this as censorship, because it doesn't impact my freedom of speech or my freedom to express myself. I don't give this the moral equivalence of, say, getting hauled off in the middle of the night for publishing a rant against the government.

 

Censorship would be not publishing it or changing/removing the offending parts. Hauling you off in the night is a bit more extreme than that.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Purkake

[Nightshape]

I don't see why it's such a big can of worms. It's rather clear that imagining something is never a crime. People aren't tried for potential crimes.

 

Oh it is, this thread could go down hill very quickly.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, I'm bigoted against rape and molestation and every other crime.

 

Therefore, you would not play, or support, a game that had you killing other people in cold blood, required you to steal, or otherwise commit a crime. Is that what you are saying? If so you must not have like, to name two examples, either KotOR or KotOR II

[Oerwinde]

Its a shame that we can't do horrible psychological experiments anymore, then we could settle this for good. Have a kid kill a bunch of people in game, then have him witness a gruesome murder and see what the reactions are to both.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Yes, I also play a horrible game like chess, which depicts the violence of war.

 

Actually, no, Chess depicts the grand strategy of war – not the actual “violence.” In the earliest versions of the game pieces were named for platoons, or a similar detachment, making the argument that Chess portrays the horrors or war, where each piece is a person and not an autonomous unit that does exactly as ordered, a mockery of common sense.

 

 

You show a clear inability to draw distinctions.

 

As do you. I did not ask you about games such as Chess, although, under your sated rules, where all crimes are abhorrent, killing extra unites needlessly might make the game “immoral.” You have just done attempted a “bait-and-switch” while not addressing what I asked – would you or would you not play a game where your character committed a crime? If so, you are a hypocrite, if not you are on the wrong forum.

 

The less abstract/fantastic something is, the closer it is to real life/ real issues, the more problematic it can potentially become.

 

Have you played Rapelay? If not, have you looked at any gameplay videos? The game itself, from what I have seen via the many, many on-line articles discussing the issue, was about as realistic as one would expect – and that is not very. The graphics were poor, the interface nothing more than a point-and-click – yes, this is surely the pinnacle of realism. However, all of that is beside the point. You have yet to explain your previous statements and, I suspect, will continue ignore that fact until this thread is closed, as that is your usual modus operandi. Still, I will grace you with a semi-response.

 

Even if you had the most realistic, fully-interactive depiction of rape -much like the new Saw game is going to do for sadism-, you would still need to prove that the game was actually harmful. The same can be said of first-person shooters, while there might have been a few cases where playing one cause violence or a rise in aggression –both of these statements are very controversial and one can find research to support either side, although, I will admit, most of the studies showing a direct causation between games and violence have been found to be deeply flawed-, is it right to ban all of this genera based upon shaky evidence or gut-reactions? If I recall there were, and perhaps still are, people making similar claims against pornography –that it promotes rape and violence against women- yet in every court case I can recall, it has been awhile since I wrote the paper about this topic for the ethics class I was tacking and thus my memory might have overlooked a few, the pornographers prevailed. The only difference in the case of games is interactivity, but one would be hard-pressed to make a claim that this alone should make them banned.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Have a kid kill a bunch of people in game, then have him witness a gruesome murder and see what the reactions are to both.

 

Kid "A" might have seen Hard-R movies and that might be the reason behind his lack of reaction, Kid "B" might simply hide his emotions well. What you suggest is deeply flawed and would not help unless it was done en mass – something that is very unlikely to occur.

[mrmud]

Just to break up the group-think a bit, consider this:

 

Meta studies (studies of studies) tend to indicate that violent video games tend to promote aggressiveness, reduces the natural abhorrence of violence, making it easier to consider the use of violence, and a reduction in the desire to help others. The meta studies are clear in this. The younger the player, the more effect. What they don't know is if the effect lasts long term...beyond the gaming, and to what extent does predisposition of the player towards violence influenced the effect. A quick google would probably bring up all kinds of studies results.

 

It's pretty clear that preadolescent children should not be playing violent games. It's probably safe to say that kids under the age of mid teens shouldn't either. There is an effect on adults, but it seems that at that point, predisposition has a larger effect.

 

So, no, playing GTA isn't going to make people go out and shoot up the town. It might, however, empower subtle increases in aggression, which might have larger influence on players who are predisposed towards violence and aggression.

 

Censorship? I don't really see this as censorship, because it doesn't impact my freedom of speech or my freedom to express myself. I don't give this the moral equivalence of, say, getting hauled off in the middle of the night for publishing a rant against the government.

 

And as we all know meta-studies are generally rubbish.

Unless you are very careful in your selection of studies to ensure that only high quality studies are included (which usually is not the case since most people making meta studies want as much data in there as possible). For example most meta-studies of acupuncture are deeply flawed by including a large number of chinese studies (where most acupuncture research happens, and this is mostly bad research). Now I dont have enough information about video game studies to draw the same conclusion as for acupuncture but its just something to keep in mind.

 

Instead of meta-studies it is generally better to take a look at the results from the best performed and controlled studies with the largest sample sizes and see if there still is any effect to speak of.

 

*edit*

Just to be clear, I just wanted to add that I think what you are saying might very well be true, I am only arguing against meta-studies.

Edited June 7, 2009 by mrmud

[Pop]

Have a kid kill a bunch of people in game, then have him witness a gruesome murder and see what the reactions are to both.

If you did this in a clinical setting, especially with young children, I doubt you'd see much difference. They'd be scared of both probably. Problem is they'd be socialized not to react to pretend violence and to react to actual violence, but if 999 out of 1000 instances of violence are pretend you run the real risk of desensitizing to that 1 of 1000. The more you drink, the less you taste alcohol, until you get to the point where you don't care if you're drinking something that's going to hurt in the morning.

 

The problem with things like this is that it's about privilege, really. Even if there was solid evidence that violence in video games harmed children, the issue would still be regarded as an attack on the privilege of people who play games, and the evidence would be disregarded. You might as well be talking gun violence to the NRA.

[Mamoulian War]

Meta studies (studies of studies) tend to indicate that violent video games tend to promote aggressiveness, reduces the natural abhorrence of violence, making it easier to consider the use of violence, and a reduction in the desire to help others. The meta studies are clear in this. The younger the player, the more effect. What they don't know is if the effect lasts long term...beyond the gaming, and to what extent does predisposition of the player towards violence influenced the effect. A quick google would probably bring up all kinds of studies results.

 

There are different studies aswell...

 

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/01...es-violence.ars

 

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2007/11...-and-gaming.ars

 

This is the most interesting

 

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/02...-a-bad-idea.ars

 

And this is my favourite :D

 

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/02...ast-feeding.ars

[Maria Caliban]

With that logic, Rapelay is perfectly, okay!

 

Actually, although I personally find it discussing and disturbing, I think that it IS perfectly

Edited June 7, 2009 by Maria Caliban

[Mamoulian War]

Killing another person can be okay. We recognize that defending oneself or others from harm is a moral act. A story about a soldier killing enemy combatants can be heroic, a story about a soldier raping the women never will be.

 

 

Killing another person is NEVER ok!!!

 

Glorifying soldiers to promote killing is same bull**** like glorifying Bundy or Mason...

Edited June 7, 2009 by Mamoulian War

[steelfiredragon]

germany has produced some of the best warriors of all time.

 

it has also has produced some of the most vile of men.

 

 

running from its warrior past by banning violent games... is laughable.

 

Her desire to right the wrongs that has been caused in the name of germany, is commendable, but this is just foolish.

[Maria Caliban]

Killing another person is NEVER ok!!!

 

Sure it is.

 

I lived alone for the first time when I was in 18, and my step-father made sure I had a handgun. He explained that in Maine, it was legal to kill someone who'd broken into your house, but if they lived, it was possible they'd sue you. Therefore, if I shot them and they tried to escape, I should drag them back into the house and finish them.

 

Northeasterns are such practical people.

[Mamoulian War]

Killing another person is NEVER ok!!!

 

Sure it is.

 

I lived alone for the first time when I was in 18, and my step-father made sure I had a handgun. He explained that in Maine, it was legal to kill someone who'd broken into your house, but if they lived, it was possible they'd sue you. Therefore, if I shot them and they tried to escape, I should drag them back into the house and finish them.

 

Northeasterns are such practical people.

 

I seriously hope for you, that this was meant as a sarcasm...

[Morgoth]

This is how I imagine Maria...

 

Edited June 7, 2009 by Morgoth

[Gorgon]

awesome

[Niten_Ryu]

Killing another person is NEVER ok!!!

 

Glorifying soldiers to promote killing is same bull**** like glorifying Bundy or Mason...

 

I think this way too. This don't mean I wouldn't defend myself or my family but it'd still be wrong. Every soldier has a choice not to kill but in some cases it might cost their own life. Takes a lot of guts stand in front of the firing squad, just because you refused to kill someone. Self-sacrifice is interesting thing - games should explore that idea bit more.

 

About this german censorship law. If you'd ask me about this 20 or even 10 years ago, I would have been strongly against it but now I'm not so sure. Minors playing all kind of violent games and surfing whatever recent *shock* website do make me bit nervous. Parents or teachers rarely have any idea or means to stop it. I'd damn glad there weren't internet or camera phones back in my youth.

[Morgoth]

running from its warrior past by banning violent games... is laughable.

Well that's some wacky argument there. It's not so much about being ashamed of her war past, it's simply because these politicians are straight convinced that video games dehumanize young people. Espcially with all these school killing rampages going on in the past.

But hey, it's election time in September there.