Are 'violent' games really violent?

[Kaftan Barlast]

I saw a TV show the other night about human psychology and violence in which they mentioned the usual "violent videogames" and this together with Alanschus relative got me thinking: Are combat/conflict driven games really violent or is it something completely different?

 

 

For instance, when I frag someone in COD4 or Quake thats exactly the same thing as scoring if we were playing football or taking your opponents pieces in checkers. Its got nothing to do with hurting anyone. And in singleplayer games like GTA4 for example, combat is just the way in which challenges are overcome and missions are accomplished. If you had to defeat them by solving crossword puzzles, thats what youd do. Its just gameplay. Like winning a match in UFC Undisputed or FIFA 2010 is the exact same thing, but with a different model of challenge and set of moves.

And on the same note, strategy games often contain violence on a massive scale, yet are not considered violent at all. A battle in ETW can have hundreds of dead and wounded, but that doesnt seem to matter.

 

 

Violence is about physicly hurting or killing other people(or animals), games may seem violent to a casual and uninformed observer, but they're something completely different.

[Gorgon]

Yes they are violent, but it's pretend violence, there are no victims. I don't buy that it desensitizes children since they are perfectly capable of telling real from make believe, it's what they do all day long when they play. They learn to lie around age 5-6 which involves a reasonably complex calculation and mixture of the real and the imagined. The distinction between real and imagined is, in a word, unavoidable.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

Two thoughts:

 

1) Games are not 'just games'. Cultures are most differentiated by the early socialisation that games provide. I don't think it was accidental that Zulu culture revolved around games of throwing and striking skill and tests of bravery with animals.

 

2) I was thinking just the other day what an impact BIS games have made on me these last ten years. I really do have a slight but definite tendency to go into conversations with new people in search of quests.

 

Three. Three thoughts:

 

3) If games are pointless in training for violence someone better let the DoD and MoD know. They spend millions on FPS training.

[Gorgon]

I don't think anyone suggested that simulations would be poor at training tactics. They do nothing about the psychological element though, which is what we concern ourselves with here - does pretend violence erode the capacity for empathy, and of course it doesn't.

[Gorgon]

Two thoughts:

 

1) Games are not 'just games'. Cultures are most differentiated by the early socialisation that games provide. I don't think it was accidental that Zulu culture revolved around games of throwing and striking skill and tests of bravery with animals.

So games are training, like lion cubs learning to hunt. Well we don't have any practical application for hunting skills anymore, but maybe a part of our primitive brain still needs the thrill of the hunt (FPS games)

 

Would it be possible to deliberately craft a game with the intention of eroding empathy... I don't know, I think you would need more levels of control. Was Hitlerjugend a game ?. It was advertised to new recruits as something akin to the boyscouts. Then the kids were subjected to increasing levels of fanatical fascist Indoctrination. One did not leave, it simply wasn't done. It was quite spectacularly effective in eroding empathy according to former members.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Gorgon

[Kaftan Barlast]

I started a thread on the academic forum aswell about this and apparently there is heavy reserach that supports my point of view. When playing a game, the human mind will treat everything as abstractions of a function. It doesnt matter if it throwing balls into a cup or taking out a grub with a well-aimed torque bow shot. What matters to the psyche is the result within the context of the game; for example "one more kill and I get the UAV!" in Cod4.

 

Even if there was a connection between playing "violent" games and being violent IRL (which there is significant proof against), the brain is not thinking about violence when playing the game. The only person who percieves any violent action going on is an observer with no experience of similar games.

[mkreku]

I guess that's bad luck for all those flight simulators that every pilot school in the world utilizes then.

[Blarghagh]

I've always figured that the people who do stuff because of video games are people who would have snapped anyway because of problems in their perception of the world, real or fake.

 

I've no evidence to support this claim, but it seems logical enough to me. As soon as video games stop getting the blame, something else will. Oh no, it's the flashy lights in 2030's summer fashion that caused that quiet dude to pull out a railgun!

Edited November 3, 2009 by TrueNeutral

[The Illuminator]

Before the violent games violence was still continuing on the earth with tragedies like ethnic slaughters. It's firstly your conscious to approve or deny to be violent. If you have a nature that is ignoring or approving violence no matter it is to your profit or harm, than you are a potential murderer even if you have never played violent computer games. Also if you have a different nature, then the possiblities differs, for instance;

 

-you may not play violent games as you cannot stand to see violence even in the games

-you may enjoy playing violent games, but never enjoy to harm people in real life

-you may enjoy playing violent games, and you may harm people when you get angry, but never even think to kill

-the upper degree is the same with my first paragraph above.

 

All in all, I think children mustn't play violent games, but if an angry mature relaxes when he kicks an rpg character in a game, then it is good for him to kick in games, as he shall possibly kick somebody in real life if doesn't satisfy this ego in games.

[mkreku]

Sigh. It feels like we've had this discussion before a lot of times. And still people are like "the games don't put a gun in your hand, they would have snapped anyhow".

 

No. Games don't make people kill other people. But a person who has spent their entire childhood watching depictions of murder in various forms a few million times may become desensitised to violence. Of course, this is very hard to prove, but it wouldn't be a surprise to any of us. The first time you see a dead person, you're likely to react with fear. But due to diminishing returns, that shock factor is lessened for each and every time you're subjected to it. Why couldn't this also apply to games? Maybe having spent your childhood killing virtual people has devalued your appreciation of other human lives? Would that effect really be impossible? I don't think so.

 

Put someone with low mental barriers against using violence in a highly stressful situation and something bad is likely to happen.

[lord of flies]

Allow me to answer your question with one of my own: Is RapeLay really rape-like?

[Walsingham]

What about fixity? That is the inertia associated with playing one winning strategy? You're all psych types so I'm not going to cite it though I can if anyone's interested. What I mean is that the mind must attach some significance to the motions it is going through or it would not have difficulty relinquishing them.

 

As for it being 'obvious' that there's no psychological component. Yes I accept that people are able to tell it's make-believe. However, there are preconscious architectures being built every second of every day. Our mental 'bureaucracy' which filters and collates information for the attention of the conscious mind. I suggest that by its very nature this level is NOT able to 'tell the difference', because it has no context beyond what is immediately obvious. Space invaders may not tell anything significant, but a full 3d surround sound representation of realistic human bodies exploding is different.

 

Consider, for example, the 'straw dummies' used to train bayonet practice in the old days. No-one thought they were real people, but the officers and NCOs of that era believed they were good practice. I can't say that I see HOW, but I'd be an arrogant fool if I ignored their opinion. Consider also the effect of reading violent fiction. If a child were raised on nothing but those weird Sven Hassel books then what are the odds they would have a caring attitude?

 

HOWEVER, none of this is to say that I consider violent games 'bad'. In and of themselves they represent one strand among the ropes which pulll us this way and that. As the above example highlights it is a question of balance among forces, and the nature and timing of application. A fish can be a tasty lunch or it can be a colossal and unpleasant surprise.

[Kaftan Barlast]

But if we could get back to the core question: is it correct to refer to games that contain conflict as "violent" even though that supposed violence is an abstraction? For instance, no one would call chess violent, although it is originally a wargame where a piece taking another is really one soldier killing another. Is it just a question of graphics and animation quality? And isnt that a rather absurd way of looking at it?

[Wrath of Dagon]

You can't just deconstruct a game and say it's just pixels, any more than you can say a movie is just make-believe or a book is just characters on paper. You have to consider what the message of the game is and how likely it is to be absorbed by someone.

 

Edit: Is Saw a violent movie? In that case why can't a game be violent? And no, it's not an abstraction if you show everything in realistic true-to-life detail, it's a representation.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Kaftan Barlast]

Im not quite sure you can say that games have messages, even in the academic sense. You might aswell ask what kind of message a hamburger sends.

 

 

And we're not discussing films or poetry here, we're talking games. The psychology behind them are not the same. And I would claim that even with good graphics, the experience of playing a game is so different from the real thing that it can be considered an abstraction. High-end professional flight simulators with real ****pit controls and so on come quite close to reality, but when we're looking at a tiny screen using a keyboard and a mouse we might aswell be playing chess.

 

The differance between game and reality is much larger than we might believe. We did a small experiment letting people drive a very realistic car simulator using best available computers wheel with pedals and shiftstick, and logicly it shouldnt have been a problem but it was. The test subject couldnt even get around the track, because he couldnt feel how fast he was going or where the car was on the road, and kept crashing. Maybe thats slightly irrelevant to the topic, but its interesting nontheless.

[Gfted1]

I think repeated viewing of violent scenes does have a desensitizing effect on people, you just get used to it. That does not mean it makes you more violent or likely to offend, just less likely to be taken aback by it. Do a little experiment on yorself. Go to rottendotcom (WARNING: Truly offensive stuff showing true life pictures of the many many ways to die and their results). You will be disgusted by what you see there. Then go back next week and look again, a little less disgusted no? Then the following week...I think we see where this is going.

 

The abstract of doing "this" action or "that" action to "win" is not the same as your mind becoming used to violence.

[Gorgon]

Consider, for example, the 'straw dummies' used to train bayonet practice in the old days. No-one thought they were real people, but the officers and NCOs of that era believed they were good practice. I can't say that I see HOW, but I'd be an arrogant fool if I ignored their opinion. Consider also the effect of reading violent fiction. If a child were raised on nothing but those weird Sven Hassel books then what are the odds they would have a caring attitude?

I'm guessing the straw dummies are a good approximation of what it feels like, what muscles are strained, when you stab someone with a bayonet affixed. Clicking a mouse is not a lot like shooting a rifle though. That new neuron connections should be created while you are shooting pixels on the screen, which could modify your behaviour. it all sounds pretty unlikely.

[alanschu]

I guess that's bad luck for all those flight simulators that every pilot school in the world utilizes then.

 

Those lessons are from a specific instructional purpose however. They use it to teach you the instrumentation in an environment where, if you **** up, you aren't going to die. Important things to observe would be, when the airplane goes out of control when the pilot is flying in a flight simulator, what are his physiological reactions? I am just guessing, but I have this feeling that their physical and psychological reactions would differ quite a bit compared to being in an actual airplane that goes out of control. I certainly wouldn't suggest that an airplane pilot has become desensitized to crashing his airplane because he's done it a lot in the flight simulator.

 

 

 

As a separate note, I always enjoy Henry Jenkins' perspective of the situation. Of course, I enjoy it because I agree with it. It can be found here.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I think repeated viewing of violent scenes does have a desensitizing effect on people, you just get used to it.

 

 

But the thing is that you just become used to videogames or movies, not actual violence. Among others, there was a swede scientist who did an experiment on this a few years ago where a group of people were exposed to tons of gory horror films and whatnot, then shown real news footage. They showed no signs whatsoever of having developed greater tolerance for disturbing images from reality, just fictional film. The brain will always differentiate between real and imaginary wether you want it to or not, and the hard fact is that no amount of 'simulated' violence can prepare you for the real thing.

[alanschu]

When people see stuff that is violent in media, I definitely agree that there is desensitization when given that type of media (I have seen every Saw film though, and I still cringe). I'm less inclined to believe that it will desensitize people in different, particularly more real life portrayals, forms.

 

 

Someone made an interesting comment when a group of us watched Zombieland. There is a part at the beginning of the movie where the main character mentions a rule of his to always wear your seatbelt. While explaining this rule, it shows someone scrambling to avoid zombies, jumping into a car, speeding a way, hitting a barrier, and flying through the windshield. Someone made a comment that she was surprised people could laugh at that, because stuff like that happens every day and people die as a result. She was shocked at how desensitized we could be to something like that. Heck, the theater LAUGHED at it. She was absolutely stunned.

 

Anecdotally, I know I'm not a fan of real life violence. I choose to not watch real life footage of people getting hit by cars and whatnot, and avoid sites like Rotten Tomatoes, because that stuff disturbs me and I do not want to see it. I certainly wouldn't laugh at someone flying through a windshield of their car.

[GreasyDogMeat]

But the thing is that you just become used to videogames or movies, not actual violence. Among others, there was a swede scientist who did an experiment on this a few years ago where a group of people were exposed to tons of gory horror films and whatnot, then shown real news footage. They showed no signs whatsoever of having developed greater tolerance for disturbing images from reality, just fictional film. The brain will always differentiate between real and imaginary wether you want it to or not, and the hard fact is that no amount of 'simulated' violence can prepare you for the real thing.

Agreed. Played a game called Soldier of Fortune II that allows you to disembowel enemies. First time I saw it in game it was pretty shocking for a game. After it happened a few times I was happily disemboweling terrorists and bad guys. Sometime later I watched a show on the History Channel about a WWII battle where a soldier recounted having a friend of his disemboweled by an enemy soldier. Without ever seeing any violence, just listening to the story I was again shocked.

 

So yes, I do believe there is a disconnect between video game violence and real violence. I don't know about those with 'damaged' minds though...

[Gfted1]

I think repeated viewing of violent scenes does have a desensitizing effect on people, you just get used to it.

 

 

But the thing is that you just become used to videogames or movies, not actual violence. Among others, there was a swede scientist who did an experiment on this a few years ago where a group of people were exposed to tons of gory horror films and whatnot, then shown real news footage. They showed no signs whatsoever of having developed greater tolerance for disturbing images from reality, just fictional film. The brain will always differentiate between real and imaginary wether you want it to or not, and the hard fact is that no amount of 'simulated' violence can prepare you for the real thing.

 

Huh, interesting. Maybe its just me, but I know I get used to real images of violence. Taking my earlier example, the first time I saw someones head blown off with a shotgun I was mortified. I mean its truley a disgusting sight to behold. Ten examples later, no so much. I mean, its still gross but not like it was the first time.

 

The same may possibly be said of porn. Who among us wasnt titilated by viewing our first breast? Does that same picture have the same affect now? Probably not, now you need a bit more. Almost like a drug, lol.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Huh, interesting. Maybe its just me, but I know I get used to real images of violence. Taking my earlier example, the first time I saw someones head blown off with a shotgun I was mortified. I mean its truley a disgusting sight to behold. Ten examples later, no so much. I mean, its still gross but not like it was the first time.

 

The same may possibly be said of porn. Who among us wasnt titilated by viewing our first breast? Does that same picture have the same affect now? Probably not, now you need a bit more. Almost like a drug, lol.

 

You can definently get used to real violence, if youre exposed to it. Ask any policeman, nurse, soldier with combat experience and so on. But you cant get the same effect from films or videogames.

 

 

And when it comes to porn, you definently build up a tolerance but it kind of stops at a certain point, atleast for me. A great cleavage is always a great cleavage

 

 

Anecdotally, I know I'm not a fan of real life violence. I choose to not watch real life footage of people getting hit by cars and whatnot, and avoid sites like Rotten Tomatoes, because that stuff disturbs me and I do not want to see it. I certainly wouldn't laugh at someone flying through a windshield of their car.

 

 

So in fact, you're not actually desensitized at all, Alan.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Kaftan Barlast

[alanschu]

Huh, interesting. Maybe its just me, but I know I get used to real images of violence. Taking my earlier example, the first time I saw someones head blown off with a shotgun I was mortified. I mean its truley a disgusting sight to behold. Ten examples later, no so much. I mean, its still gross but not like it was the first time.

 

You got used to seeing it in pictures, which makes sense. When I first started work in a kitchen, getting burned really hurt. After a while, I got desensitized to it. However, lets assume that you're now generally indifferent to seeing someone with their head blown off with a shotgun. Do you think that this would mean you'd be relatively indifferent were you to walk down the street in front of your house and see a body with their head blown off with a shotgun?

 

I'll concede that witnessing the results of violence that are from reality could desensitize in this way, and it's possible that you'd be more okay with seeing the body of a person with their head blown off in real life than I would. Which makes sense. You actually have some sort of expectation on what to expect from it, since you've seen real life bodies with their heads exploded. However, I'd probably wager that I've blown off more heads in video games than you have, or a lot of other people. Heck, before you went to Rotten Tomatoes, I wouldn't be surprised if you had exercised your fair share of violence on video game characters, yet you were still disturbed by the real life imagery.

[Volourn]

"No. Games don't make people kill other people. But a person who has spent their entire childhood watching depictions of murder in various forms a few million times may become desensitised to violence."

 

No. I've been around violent films/tvs shows/games my entire life, and sorry, but I'm anything but desentisized to real life violence. Nor do I go around committing real life violence either.

 

Games do not cause people to commit violence or 'desensitise' them either. That's a plain, old fashion myth.

 

I GUARANATEE you anybody who has committed violence, and where games have been 'blamed' for it have much more major, more obvious contributing factors to their violence.

 

This reminds me of the nonsense in the 80s where D&D was blamed for for suicides and murders. What many people try to conviently ignore when blaming D&D, violent games/movies/tv shows are stuff like drugs, alcohol, horrible home life, abuse, etc., etc. Not to mention the fact that violence has been a part of the human condition WAY before video games were being played.

 

And, oh, if you disagree with me, I WILL BEAT YOU UP.