Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
So say Alan Titchmarsh, Julie Peasgood and Kelvin Mackenzie:
I was just thinking the other day how strange war games in particular were so strange. Especially the Medal of Honour games. Spielberg makes this worthy, sombre evocation of war in Saving Private Ryan and then lends his name to a computer game where you get to kill the baddies.
Kelvin Mackenzie weighing in with another well thought out comment:
"The average age, by the way, is 33, of the videogamers. My main concern...is that the sophistication of videogames is such now, you know, that actually, nobody can tell me where it's all going to end."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Sounds like a hell of a game, IMO.
"The villagers are fleeing! Rush them?"
I'm a violent, misogynistic racist who is addicted to games and racism and that fucking lethal Tetris bizzle rocks my SHIT
the end sequence was.
Oh, just some rubbish fireworks then...piss poor.
that they're all shit at these games.
Why don't these people just fuck off and talk about Cheryl Cole or something and stop talking bollocks about things they don't understand
The intertrons win again.
...I really like the way that, of late, if you want to gain any traction when you're putting an argument forward you better be solid and watertight. Eeejits spouting nonsense are less able to come up with this kind of tripe and get anywhere becuase it's all to easily to deliver a sweet smackdown.
As the internet reaches every corner of life, and gets widespread enough to be a normal everyday thing for Mail & Sun readers and ITV viewers, the facts be there waiting for them.
It was all to easy to live in a bubble of ignorance when the newspaper or tv channel was piped into your house with no real comeback for a whole host of ill-thought out arguments. Ok, so a CVG expose ain't necessarily gonna give Kelvin MacKenzie (who was only runnning at around 70% gittishness on that clip) nightmares, but it's nice to know that Julie Peasgood has probably been dealt a slice of ironic food for thought as a comeback to her OTT ranting at a calm and composed videogames industry bod.
Vorderman (completely) and Starkey (a little less so) have both been tripped up on Question Time and roundly ridiculed on the internet afterwards. Jan Moir got torn down for unfounded nonsense about Gately. The list goes on...
I'd like to think that whilst the loonies are still carping on, they've got less and less of a platform to do it without their ignorance being bought into focus.
and murdered a few prostitutes, all done in a very jerky way cos thats how i seen them do it on my computer.
my goodness me
I get rewarded by fixing things :)
and start making shit up about Megabikes per second and 'powering up' in real life.
Because really, it's hilarious that people think like this, and they are slowly being herded into a little mini ignorance group.
Annoyingly, one only has to go look at Have Your Say on the BBC to discover that there's a new group being incubated...
Does this include the news most of the time then?
sort of. more media violence. but you know, there are MASSIVELY strong links between the consumption of media violence and violent individuals. whether there is a causal link is something else... i guess i'll let you know tomorrow.
If it IS the case, keep quiet. I don't want Alan proved right.
does not mean that it *makes* them violent. people self-select their media so it wouldn't surprise me if naturally violent people chose to receive violent media but i would be very surprised if it could be proved that violent media made non-violent people more aggressive.
but it's filled with holes. Plenty of people with no real violent inclinations still enjoy very violent computer games, and there is a great deal of research that suggests playing computer games (of any nature, not just violent) for extended periods of time during young ages can impact on the development of parts of the brain, most notably the part that feels empathy.
Certainly the whole monkey-see monkey-do attitude that many more reactionary commentators approach is a load of old shit but there is a great deal of evidence to suggest violent games can and do alter behaviour.
“games (of any nature, not just violent) … can impact on the development of parts of the brain” then you say “there is a great deal of evidence to suggest violent games can and do alter behaviour”. How great an impact does the level of violence have on behaviour as compared to a non or less violent game?
Those two statements don't contradict each other anyway.
if playing any computer game, violent or otherwise, for an extended period of time diminished a persons empathy. even social gaming is very different to actual human interaction. following on from that it wouldn't surprise me if violent computer games had the potential to make people more callous, if people are allowed to play them to such an extent that they track of context.
that's still radically different to making someone more violent. it seems to me that any social dysfuntion induced by computer games is likely to be an exaggeration or diminishing of characterisitcs already present within the user.
I think what's been key to any sensible study and research is that they examine the consequences of spending too much time gaming. Too much of anything is bound to mess with you.
I'll reserve judgement on whether there's truly causation or simply a correlation, without having read the 'great deal of evidence' that 'violent games can and do alter behaviour'.
Especially seeing as that comes behind the more general question of whether media on the whole can influence mental development, and even that issue is marginalised by the issue of parents not respecting videogame age ratings.
It's all about the parents on this one. The games industry is fully aware of it's responsibility to respect age ratings. Shops are too.
Titchmarsh undermines any semblance of sesible debate by opting to ignore the fact that DVDs exist when he bangs on about how "you have to leave the house to see a gore film, but videogames are in the house". Kelvin opts for the slightly more moderate "thin end of the wedge" angle, but that kind of argument never really endures. As I understand it, printed novels were considered to be a corrupting influence when they appeared on the scene.
The spEak You're bRanes demogrpahic have no hope of grasping any of these issues, but hopefully the open nature of the inrternet means their rantings are now more easily exposed as the fallacies that they are.
It's so exasperating that people who understandably have valid worries about the place of violent material in the home. But short of adopting China's levels of cencorship, the age restrictions are a perfectly pragmatic solution.
What makes things more exasperating is that these same people are the prime demographic that will happily leave wimmins 'destitution-porn' weeklies and 'my horrible life' novels lying around on the coffee table. Supposedly real stories about BURYING MY ABORTED FOETUS IN THE GARDEN WITH A SPOON* (I've seen this one) or MY UNCLE SLEPT WITH MY MUM'S ADOPTED DOLPHIN** are gonna mess with a kid's perception of what's 'normal', 'acceptable behaviour' more than any blatantly fictional gore-fest that might give 'em the odd nightmare that evening.
And then these folk will bang on about how Zoo and Nuts are a corrupting influence because they have pictures of sexy ladies (although I do accept there's a slightly insidious 'airbrushing' issue here, along with other, more fundamental, issues of gender politics when it comes to these titty-rags-for-folk-what-don't-want-to-actually-buy-full-fledged-porn)
*(I've seen this one)
**(I've not seen this one, but it's only a matter of time before the monkeys with typewriters happen upon it)
Research that doesn't suggest there is a correlation between aggressive behaviour and gaming tends to go unpublished, and fewer benefactors are willing to fund research based on such a hypothesis, which invariably leads to a biased research consensus. There is still however a great deal of research that supports the idea that exposure to violent/aggressive media or behaviour at a young age impacts upon the development of empathy, sympathy and other social and emotional bondaries. You'll also find research that (legitimately) dismisses that idea. Personally, I find it quite easy to believe that exposure to violence/aggression (of any form, either in a film, game or in real life) at young age can lead to more extreme behaviours being normalised.
Parents obviously have a big role to play, both in setting boundaries to what they want their children to see and for how long, and for placing this in context for their children.
Srs, though, I would be interested to see how the link goes. Pls to update.
but I thought the debate of "KOPMUTER GAMES MAKE U EVIL" had been done?
not even kidding.
it's about time that the games industry stopped making sequels and started pumping out some more original games
you fucking bitch
“For most investigators of media violence effects…there’s no longer a question about whether viewing violent events in the mass media enhances the likelihood of further aggression.” (Berkowitz 1993, 208)
“The evidence in support of the hypothesis that viewing violence leads to an increase in aggressive behavior is very strong” (Gunter and McAleer 1997, 114).
This consensus view was endorsed in 2000 by the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association (see Bushman & Anderson 2001).
Just saying, like.
or DanielKelly's posts above, so I'll pop in here. I've just run a little search on some of the updated reviews that came after the quotes you've mentioned, and there's a key thing to look at: which reviews examine mediational pathways and which ones don't. The ones that ignore mediators should be treated cautiously, because they're absolutely crucial: I spotted a couple that emphasised the effect of general hostility and parental involvement in determining the relationship between media violence and aggression.
This might sound like a small thing, but it isn't: it more suggests that general media violence (and not necessarily of the type associated with computer games) has the potential to activate existing dispositions towards aggression, which is (I think) a fairly different prospect to the hypothesis 'games lead to aggression.'