Thread: Computer games, what is over the line? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026381
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
From Grand Theft Auto, first person shooter games of all kinds,Pipe Trouble (link to game's site), and now, The Life of Anne Frank, we have seen the growth of video games into just about everything.
At what point has a video game gone too far? Is the Anne Frank game over the line? Suicide bombing? What if someone made a game about the twin tower, 11 Sept attacks? At what point is it too much?
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
It seems to me things could get worse. It is easy to imagine games based on:
--- escaping slaves (from either POV)
--- shopping at Macy's after Thanksgiving
--- gang life in any of various cities
--- triage in an emergency room
--- a suicide bomber (achieve the maximum effect)
--- the Inquisition (how long can you hold out?)
--- the sinking of the Titanic
--- surviving a day of high school
--- buying drugs without being cheated or arrested
--- survival in Rwanda or Sierra Leone, etc.
--- the Dust Bowl in 1930s Kansas
Some of these are worse than others (Macy's! high school!) and some may already have been invented.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
But it is easy to imagine a film being made about any of these topics. Or a book being written. And they might be good, inspiring films, or terrible, awful films. It would depend on how it was done.
There was, for example, quite a famous and popular series of games ("Dungeon Keeper") based on being a chief torturer. It wasn't to my taste, but it had a predominantly jokey tone which kept it from being too grim.
Or take the multifarious horror films that are out there (Saw etc. spring to mind) - basically (imaginary) extreme human suffering as entertainment. I think most computer games are mild compared to that. I guess there could be (maybe there are?) games based on these franchises which could be pretty unpleasant. I don't like these films, and I wouldn't be surprised if they have harmful effects, but we seem to tolerate them. So I expect we will just tolerate games of this nature as well.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I blame Jesus. I was a total Age-of-Empires, Medal-of-Honour, Call-of-Duty addict. I used to have to cross the Vistula every night for weeks in a T34. Modern Warfare. Just AWESOME. Last year I was confronted by Jesus the pacifist. And I just can't do it any more! And I miss it!!
I wish I could go back to it!!! I can't.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It seems to me things could get worse. It is easy to imagine games based on:
...
--- triage in an emergency room
...
Some of these are worse than others (Macy's! high school!) and some may already have been invented.
Is this close enough to tick one of your boxes?
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It seems to me things could get worse. It is easy to imagine games based on:
--- escaping slaves (from either POV)
--- shopping at Macy's after Thanksgiving
--- gang life in any of various cities
--- triage in an emergency room
--- a suicide bomber (achieve the maximum effect)
--- the Inquisition (how long can you hold out?)
--- the sinking of the Titanic
--- surviving a day of high school
--- buying drugs without being cheated or arrested
--- survival in Rwanda or Sierra Leone, etc.
--- the Dust Bowl in 1930s Kansas
Some of these are worse than others (Macy's! high school!) and some may already have been invented.
As an avid console and recently a PC gamer and one time game tester, I recall a console game that came out in the 2000's that stirred up a lot of controversy, wasn't a very good game and bit the proverbial dust rather quickly. It was so unpopular that I can't remember the name of it but you were a soldier fighting the "gooks" in Vietnam. You had to go and burn villages down and kill the Vietcong. Gosh, what a great idea! My partner plays a lot of console games about World War II. She takes great delight in killing Nazis. I wonder why it's okay to kill Nazis but not so acceptable to kill V.C.?!
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
The fantastic game Canis Canem Edit (dog eat dog, retitled Bully for the American market) was a school survival game that got banned in Brazil. The actual game was more like my experience of school as a pupil rather than my more recent experience as a teacher. Hi-jinks and general naughtiness rather than full-on Columbine or Sandy Hook simulation.
(I would give you a link but The Ship does not want to play ball with the parentheses in the Wikipedia URL)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Link to Wiki article, thanks to tinyurl.com
TBH I just don't like any video games which involve killing things, and even more when it's people. I suppose killing zombies might be OK, but the whole zombie thing creeps me out!
ISTM that the whole thing encourages an objectifying process in relation to others which is akin to pornography. These 'people' only matter in relation to their impact on us, and ours on them. There is no backstory, as their always must be in real life of grieving parents, siblings, spouses or children. The less like real people they are the better, but in general the gaming industry is heading in the opposite direction.
Also there is a false sense of immortality in the player who can easily be reincarnated for the next episode of the game.
I guess I'm just a killjoy!
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
What if someone made a game about the twin tower, 11 Sept attacks? At what point is it too much?
In some ways, this has already been done. It's called Flight Simulator. You are meant to avoid the buildings, take off and land safely, but there's nothing to stop you aiming at tall buildings.
In a very early incarnation of the game, I remember aiming to fly underneath the Golden Gate Bridge, though I repeatedly failed by going either into the water or the bridge.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
And Flight Simulator is used by many airline pilots to practise flying into airports they are unfamiliar with. Isn't it better for them to practise with a computer game, when hitting the Golden Gate Bridge or overrunning the runway will not kill anyone?
The medical triage game might exist, too - for training triage nurses.
It's not as easy to draw the line as you might think.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And Flight Simulator is used by many airline pilots to practise flying into airports they are unfamiliar with. Isn't it better for them to practise with a computer game, when hitting the Golden Gate Bridge or overrunning the runway will not kill anyone?
The simulator used by pilots isn't a game - it's a flight simulator.
Several times a year the go into one to practice things like loss of an engine, fire in the hold etc, which can not be practiced for real.
Medical professionals simulate emergencies in practice - but they don't use games.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
Boogie - I think you misunderstand. What I had in mind, and what I think Jane R also had in mind (correct me if I'm wrong) is a game like this. There are lots of similar titles.
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And Flight Simulator is used by many airline pilots to practise flying into airports they are unfamiliar with. Isn't it better for them to practise with a computer game, when hitting the Golden Gate Bridge or overrunning the runway will not kill anyone?
The simulator used by pilots isn't a game - it's a flight simulator.
What's the difference?
Amorya
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
Games seem to pushing the envelope in recent years. In Modern Warfare (2007) there was a scene where you played an undercover operative in a russian terrorist cell during a terror attack. You walked through an airport level executing as many civilians as possible. Yet this scene didn't have to be played to progress the game, and there was no encouragement to shoot civilians, you could walk through the level not firing your gun until the SWAT arrived and still complete it.
In Modern Warfare 3 (2009) you play a father taking photographs of his wife and child outside Big Ben as a van pulls up behind them and explodes, killing them both. Its pretty horrific, but again you can skip it, and you're not encouraged to commit any active role yourself.
Yet in GTA V there's a scene where you have to torture a man to get information from him. The character you play is a psychopath and you have to pick between using pliers, wrench, waterboarding or electric clips and actively torture the man four seperate times to get information while he screams and pleads for mercy. There's no way to skip the scenes, or choose not to torture the man. This is in comparison with Modern Warfare where you chase a suspect through a favela to capture him but the subsequent torture for his information takes place off-screen and you don't see or take part in it.
This is an example of the evolution of violence in big-budget mainstream games. Although if you look at lesser-known titles game companies have been playing with torture-porn for years. I'm not aware of anything as extreme as the scene in GTAV though. I think that's definitely crossing the line.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And Flight Simulator is used by many airline pilots to practise flying into airports they are unfamiliar with. Isn't it better for them to practise with a computer game, when hitting the Golden Gate Bridge or overrunning the runway will not kill anyone?
The simulator used by pilots isn't a game - it's a flight simulator.
What's the difference?
Amorya
A flight simulator does everything, motion, visuals, the lot.
This is exactly like the one my son trained in, he spent 1000s of hours in one before he was let loose in a real A320.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And Flight Simulator is used by many airline pilots to practise flying into airports they are unfamiliar with. Isn't it better for them to practise with a computer game, when hitting the Golden Gate Bridge or overrunning the runway will not kill anyone?
The simulator used by pilots isn't a game - it's a flight simulator.
What's the difference?
Amorya
A "flight simulation" computer game such as Microsoft Flight Simulator or one of the many others is designed for entertainment, to give a fun experience that is a little bit like flying and to have pretty graphics which look good on a home computer. You get a very average jack-of-all-trades approach that includes simplified controls and performance, and usually very inaccurate scenery and airport layouts that don't include the details a real pilot would use for landmarks when flying low. The level of detail is so low that there are whole companies which make their living from selling packages of better graphics for the ground and better models of aircraft to use in the games.
A proper simulator for training focuses on the controls and performance of a particular aircraft which are replicated in the full layout of the cockpit rather than on a computer screen. You don't get the nicest graphics, because the ground looking pretty is very much secondary to accurately simulating the performance of the aircraft including simulated failure modes.
Some pilots may use consumer-grade computer games like Microsoft Flight Simulator to check out a rough idea of what an unfamiliar area looks like. Most airlines would frown on that though, because a 2D image generated by a consumer-grade computer game simply cannot provide a realistic simulation of actually flying over the landmarks in real life. Better training methods would include navigational chart study, viewing videos shot from on board cameras, or riding in the cockpit with an experienced pilot on a real approach.
The same applies to rail drivers. They have full cab simulators (which are usually made by the same company making the real rolling stock) for training on the equipment. They may also have consumer-grade simulation games which they can use for a rough idea of a rail line's layout and landmarks (if it's been constructed well) which complement route learning videos and route learning trips on board actual trains. Doing a training-grade simulator that does an accurate job of both equipment and routes has never been done yet, the closest it gets is an equipment simulator with recorded video of the real route looking out of the simulator's windows.
[ 02. October 2013, 13:22: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Boogie: quote:
The simulator used by pilots isn't a game - it's a flight simulator.
I am aware of the difference between games and (real) flight simulators, thanks. However, I am reliably informed (by a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society) that Microsoft's game 'Flight Simulator' IS used by many commercial pilots to study the layout and approaches to airports they are unfamiliar with. Presumably they also fly in with someone who does know that airport the first couple of times, but the more practice (real, game, or simulated) they have, the better. IMNSHO.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Yet in GTA V there's a scene where you have to torture a man to get information from him. The character you play is a psychopath and you have to pick between using pliers, wrench, waterboarding or electric clips and actively torture the man four seperate times to get information while he screams and pleads for mercy. There's no way to skip the scenes, or choose not to torture the man. This is in comparison with Modern Warfare where you chase a suspect through a favela to capture him but the subsequent torture for his information takes place off-screen and you don't see or take part in it.
It's interesting that your wording is "you torture a man". For me, playing through that scene, it was Trevor torturing the man. Not me. Same as when I watch Jack Bauer torturing someone in 24.
Computer games are obviously immersive in that the player 'inhabits' the character, and that can be to various degrees. Simply the view from which the game is played can have a large effect. Call of Duty is first-person, so it 'feels' like you're the one shooting at people. GTA is (mostly) third-person, so, even though you're pressing the buttons, you're watching the scene like in a movie.*
With GTA as well, you're playing as 3 different characters, so for me, it feels even less as if I "am" one of those characters. I'm just interacting in their story, seeing how it plays out.
With a role-playing game, it's different again. You get to name your character, choose their physical attributes and skills, and you can often play through the whole game from a first-person view. Decisions you make in the game have a tangible effect in the world, rather than the story being 'on rails'. And as a result, many people seem to find it very difficult to make the bad moral choices in those kind of games, because it seems more 'real'. I've come across a few people who played through and completed Fallout 3 being 'good', and decided to start again and be evil instead, only to find that they can't go through with it. Even so, as the name gives a way, it's a role-playing game. It's not you. It's you adopting a role, playing a character.
* Even then it's more nuanced. Peep Show (a TV show filmed only from 1st person view) doesn't make me feel like I "am" the characters, but shows me the world from their point of view.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
At what point has a video game gone too far?
Never.
It's a game. Not real life. Fantasy. Made up. Pretend.
If you find a game that happens to push your buttons the wrong way, don't play it. If you find a game which encourages you to fantasise in ways you find uncomfortable, don't play it. Those are matters of personal taste and personal responsibility, and provide no grounds for drawing some ethical line around games which no one should be allowed to play.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And Flight Simulator is used by many airline pilots to practise flying into airports they are unfamiliar with. Isn't it better for them to practise with a computer game, when hitting the Golden Gate Bridge or overrunning the runway will not kill anyone?
The medical triage game might exist, too - for training triage nurses.
It's not as easy to draw the line as you might think.
Yes, for example the Anne Frank game noted above struck me as horrific... until I read the link and realized it sounded a lot like some of the things you will find in a well-designed interactive museum like the Holocaust museum. Whether or not they do it well, I couldn't say, but the intent seems to be to build empathy rather than undermine it. (Note that your first person experience is as Anne, not a Nazi).
That being said, unlike other posters here, I have serious concerns about video game violence. I believe we are seeing effects here in the US. I think lines should and do need to be drawn, and am attempting to draw them with my own children. At the same time, I won't pretend that drawing the lines will ever be neat and tidy.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That being said, unlike other posters here, I have serious concerns about video game violence. I believe we are seeing effects here in the US. I think lines should and do need to be drawn, and am attempting to draw them with my own children. At the same time, I won't pretend that drawing the lines will ever be neat and tidy.
I have the same concerns. I have them about television and the movies as well. I work with kids who have severe behaviour problems. Over the last few years I've been more and more convinced that a lot of these kids don't have that inner knowledge of "real" vs "fantasy." They seem to see, for example, GTA, as art imitating life, and they take it very seriously, much more seriously than I ever would (yep, I've played it and enjoyed it). For me, its a game. For them, its training.
Its an interesting change for me, because when I worked for the censorship office 10 years ago, I was very against the censorship of games. Now I've seen the effects of the increasing violence of TV/movies/games on vulnerable young people, I'm not so convinced.
Its also an area in which I don't trust the research at all, since it is almost all highly polarised (effects all good, all bad).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That being said, unlike other posters here, I have serious concerns about video game violence. I believe we are seeing effects here in the US. I think lines should and do need to be drawn, and am attempting to draw them with my own children. At the same time, I won't pretend that drawing the lines will ever be neat and tidy.
I have the same concerns. I have them about television and the movies as well. I work with kids who have severe behaviour problems. Over the last few years I've been more and more convinced that a lot of these kids don't have that inner knowledge of "real" vs "fantasy." They seem to see, for example, GTA, as art imitating life, and they take it very seriously, much more seriously than I ever would (yep, I've played it and enjoyed it). For me, its a game. For them, its training.
Its an interesting change for me, because when I worked for the censorship office 10 years ago, I was very against the censorship of games. Now I've seen the effects of the increasing violence of TV/movies/games on vulnerable young people, I'm not so convinced.
Its also an area in which I don't trust the research at all, since it is almost all highly polarised (effects all good, all bad).
yes. All that.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
yes. All that.
Ditto, but the key word is "kids".
There is absolutely no way that kids should be playing these kinds of games, just as they shouldn't be watching similar films.
BBFC makes the ratings but there is very little done to enforce them. Exposing kids to games and films like this when they're too young is utterly wrong. IMO there's a lot more than needs to be done in terms of education and policy. For example, if a teacher finds out a primary school kid is watching and playing 18 rated material, there should be a call to Social Services. Problem is, a the moment that would probably mean visits to half the parents of the kids in the class in some schools. Might not be a bad thing, though...
And then there's the issue of how screwed up the rating system has become as well... Many ratings are way too low.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It seems to me things could get worse. It is easy to imagine games based on:
--- escaping slaves (from either POV)
--- shopping at Macy's after Thanksgiving
--- gang life in any of various cities
--- triage in an emergency room
--- a suicide bomber (achieve the maximum effect)
--- the Inquisition (how long can you hold out?)
--- the sinking of the Titanic
--- surviving a day of high school
--- buying drugs without being cheated or arrested
--- survival in Rwanda or Sierra Leone, etc.
--- the Dust Bowl in 1930s Kansas
Some of these are worse than others (Macy's! high school!) and some may already have been invented.
If you count tabletop RPGs rather than computer games that's variously:
--- Steal away Jordan
--- Fiasco
--- Arguably any Cyberpunk or most World of Darkness games
--- Pass
--- Both Montsegur 1244 and Dogs in the Vineyard come close in different ways (Montsegur is about the fall of one of the Cathar strongholds, and Dogs is about the price you are willing to pay)
--- Fiasco again
--- Monsterhearts
--- A GM in any WoD system. Or Fiasco.
--- Dog Eat Dog
--- What are you doing there? (I can't answer that directly).
Fiasco in particular is an awesome two hour game that I'd recommend to anyone with an interest in storytelling/writing/acting and who likes black comedies. And I'd recommend all the named games.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
yes. All that.
Ditto, but the key word is "kids".
There is absolutely no way that kids should be playing these kinds of games, just as they shouldn't be watching similar films.
BBFC makes the ratings but there is very little done to enforce them. Exposing kids to games and films like this when they're too young is utterly wrong. IMO there's a lot more than needs to be done in terms of education and policy. For example, if a teacher finds out a primary school kid is watching and playing 18 rated material, there should be a call to Social Services. Problem is, a the moment that would probably mean visits to half the parents of the kids in the class in some schools. Might not be a bad thing, though...
And then there's the issue of how screwed up the rating system has become as well... Many ratings are way too low.
There are two problems with the ratings systems:
1. Depending on the national system, many of the ratings are often recommendations rather than restrictions. The G (General), PG (Parental Guidance recommended for children under 15) and M (not recommended for children under 15, contains mature themes) ratings in Australia are all purely advisory.
2. Even when certain ratings do restrict rather than just recommend, only purchases are regulated and not use. The MA15+ (Mature Audiences), R18+ (Restricted - Adults) and X18+ ratings in Australia are all restrictive in regards to the purchase only, if a parent/guardian chooses to do so they can allow their child to watch/play such material or even attend a movie at a cinema with them if it's a MA15+ movie.
It does work to a certain degree, earlier this year Saints Row IV was the first computer game to be refused even the R18+ classification (and therefore refused sale) under new guidelines here. It would have been good if GTA V got the same treatment.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I don't like these films, and I wouldn't be surprised if they have harmful effects, but we seem to tolerate them. So I expect we will just tolerate games of this nature as well.
Agree - computer games are just another art form, and the fact that they are newer than films or books doesn't of itself make them any better or worse.
I too suspect that there's something unhealthy in the quantity and degree of violence that many people routinely engage with through the media of film and TV, that our culture tolerates a little too much in this regard. But there seems to be no clear principle, no well-defined line that helps us judge that this scene in this movie is OK but that scene in that movie isn't.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
At what point has a video game gone too far?
Never.
It's a game. Not real life. Fantasy. Made up. Pretend.
If you find a game that happens to push your buttons the wrong way, don't play it. If you find a game which encourages you to fantasise in ways you find uncomfortable, don't play it. Those are matters of personal taste and personal responsibility, and provide no grounds for drawing some ethical line around games which no one should be allowed to play.
Couldn't have said it better myself, Eliab. You'd think we'd be past the pearl-clutching stage on this, but apparently not!
Posted by ProgenitorDope (# 16648) on
:
Oh, I don't know. If I could play devil's advocate, as much as I hate game censorship I know a few (admittedly ones made in a basement somewhere) that cross the line so much you can't help but laugh at how disgusting they are.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer's_Revenge
https://www.google.com/search?q=ethnic+cleansing+game (first search result)
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Eliab: quote:
If you find a game that happens to push your buttons the wrong way, don't play it. If you find a game which encourages you to fantasise in ways you find uncomfortable, don't play it. Those are matters of personal taste and personal responsibility...
...and that's fine for responsible adults, although for some people 'don't play it' might be easier said than done. I shouldn't waste time posting on the Ship when I ought to be doing something else, but I find it hard to stop myself.
However, I share cliffdweller and Arabella's concern about the effect of very violent games, TV and films on children. They don't understand the difference between reality and fantasy as well as an adult. So they learn a) that it's OK to beat people up or even kill them to get what you want and b) that you can do stupidly dangerous things and survive unscathed. Then they go to school... or the park... or cross the road...
Of course responsible parents will try to keep unsuitable material away from their children, but even things that are supposed to be suitable can be problematic (eg The Rescuers II, which has a scene where a small lizard is shot at almost point-blank range with a shotgun and walks away unhurt). And what about children with clueless or irresponsible parents, do we just write them off?
If this is pearl-clutching, then call me Mother of Pearl. I do think it's hard to draw the line, but there ought to be a line somewhere.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
However, I share cliffdweller and Arabella's concern about the effect of very violent games, TV and films on children. They don't understand the difference between reality and fantasy as well as an adult.
Just a question, why would we draw the line at just these sorts of media, what about books? I mean, once you go down the slippery slope type of reasoning - what prevents you from banning anything that is even vaguely questionable (which pretty much where a lot of fundamentalists would stand).
As something that might be interesting, there is one MMO i'm aware of where theft, deception, piracy etc are not only present but are actively encouraged by the game makers. This is an interesting article written by someone who plays that MMO (EVE) which (jargon aside) may make interesting reading as to another point of view:
http://aidenmourn.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/in-defense-of-the-dark-side/
He makes the definition between the self and the roles we play - in a way that makes parallels with little boys pretending to be cowboys (or using a stick as a gun to shoot each other etc).
There's an interesting sidenote here too:
http://aidenmourn.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/the-way-you-are-playing/
The paragraph starting:
"If you play this game long enough, (actually it takes about a week to run into your first one), you’ll begin to notice that there is a sizable group of misguided do-gooders in this game who honestly believe that who they are in a video game is a DIRECT EXTENSION of who they are in real life."
[ 05. October 2013, 09:58: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
A few years ago I would have agreed. Now I work with kids who really, really don't get that violent games are fantasy. And that teenage soaps are fantasy. And that movies are fantasy. Really.
Their parents don't care, either. I'm reminded of friends who thought that their 13-year-old daughter's request to watch Pulp Fiction was perfectly OK, then wondered why she and her friends were so upset (perfect sleepover movie, not). And they were generally OK parents.
I think its hilarious that someone has mentioned books. The kids I'm talking about wouldn't know what to do with a book if it landed in their McDonalds.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
What Arabella said.
Oh, and I do understand the difference between playing an RPG or video game and doing this sort of thing in real life. There are people out there who don't, though. I'm surprised you haven't met any of them.
And you think *I* have a sheltered life?
[ 05. October 2013, 11:49: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
What Arabella said.
Oh, and I do understand the difference between playing an RPG or video game and doing this sort of thing in real life. There are people out there who don't, though. I'm surprised you haven't met any of them.
[Not all of my post was in response to you - I brought up the links because I felt it was interesting in the context of the entire subject.]
I've met people like this - however my question to you is if you are going to go down the road of banning things based on these people, ISTM that you'll have to go a lot further than the list of things you mentioned (there's a reasonable case for banning large amounts of childrens fiction, based on this kind of argument).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
However, I share cliffdweller and Arabella's concern about the effect of very violent games, TV and films on children. They don't understand the difference between reality and fantasy as well as an adult.
Just a question, why would we draw the line at just these sorts of media, what about books? I mean, once you go down the slippery slope type of reasoning - what prevents you from banning anything that is even vaguely questionable (which pretty much where a lot of fundamentalists would stand).
Ah, the slippery slope argument.
Again, we all agree that "drawing the line" is going to be difficulty, messy, and possibly unfair at times. I have to "draw the line" with my kids all the time, and haven't found that easy to do. I start with some broad guidelines (no R movies, for ex.) and then make exceptions on both sides of the line (there are R movies I'll allow, and PG13 I won't).
It's not easy, but the fact that something is hard, that it doesn't lend itself well to black-and-white solutions, that it can be misused, is no the same as saying it's not worth doing.
When it comes to genre, yes, our family looks at violence in all media, not just video games. It is the overall violent imagery in our society that is the problem, not video games in particular. That being said, different forms of media seem to engage the user in different ways, which may magnify the impact. Reading a book engages the reader in a very different way than a movie, which engages the viewer in a different way than a game. I'm concerned about all forms of violence in media, but from my own non-scientific observation, I'm more concerned about first-person video games than I am about literary media.
ymmv
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, we all agree that "drawing the line" is going to be difficulty, messy, and possibly unfair at times. I have to "draw the line" with my kids all the time, and haven't found that easy to do. I start with some broad guidelines (no R movies, for ex.) and then make exceptions on both sides of the line (there are R movies I'll allow, and PG13 I won't).
Yes, and I'm sure most of us - whether parents or not - make the same sorts of calculations all the time. Including the exceptions on both sides of the line (which incidentally indicates how difficult this sort of thing to legislate).
quote:
It's not easy, but the fact that something is hard, that it doesn't lend itself well to black-and-white solutions, that it can be misused, is no the same as saying it's not worth doing.
Absolutely, and on a personal level each of us will make a similar set of calculations for either ourselves or our families. On a societal level there are already age related classifications for things like video games. So other than a general moral concern, I'm not sure what more should be done.
quote:
I'm concerned about all forms of violence in media, but from my own non-scientific observation, I'm more concerned about first-person video games than I am about literary media.
I would agree with you to an extent. OTOH I'm sure there are plenty of people for whom reading 'The Fountainhead' at 13 would ultimately be more morally corrosive than playing GTA V - and I know some of them too.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I would agree with you to an extent. OTOH I'm sure there are plenty of people for whom reading 'The Fountainhead' at 13 would ultimately be more morally corrosive than playing GTA V - and I know some of them too.
Agh, good point!
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
However, I share cliffdweller and Arabella's concern about the effect of very violent games, TV and films on children. They don't understand the difference between reality and fantasy as well as an adult.
As a general principle, I think that is entirely untrue.
Stories, fantasy, games, pretend, dress-up ... these are things that ordinary children understand very well indeed. Better than many adults.
quote:
So they learn a) that it's OK to beat people up or even kill them to get what you want and b) that you can do stupidly dangerous things and survive unscathed. Then they go to school... or the park... or cross the road...
Now you're just making shit up.
Whatever the hell you are talking about there isn't normal psychology. Thousands, millions, of kids watch cartoons, play war games, enjoy all sorts of fantasy violence, and almost none of them think it's OK to kill and walk in front of cars. That's pathological behaviour.
quote:
Of course responsible parents will try to keep unsuitable material away from their children
I think it more important to help children form characters that are resilient enough to cope with unsuitable material than to shield them from it. Censorship might be part of that process but it is a means to an end. Responsible parental censorship should work towards its own abolition - the aim is to produce children who don't need it.
But all that is beside the main point. The question in the OP is whether there are ideas that we shouldn't be allowed to make part of our play - that is things we shouldn't be allowed to enjoy thinking about. Fuck that. I remember the joyless shits of the church of my childhood arguing that people like me shouldn't be allowed to play D&D, for exactly the same reasons that today's joyless shits give for video games. It's not about protecting children. It's resentment of other people's love of frivolous pleasure. Since frivolous pleasure ranks amongst the very greatest achievements of our species, opposition to it is simply inhumane.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The question in the OP is whether there are ideas that we shouldn't be allowed to make part of our play - that is things we shouldn't be allowed to enjoy thinking about.
There's two questions here - one is whether certain ideas in entertainment ought to be illegal or banned. And then there's whether enjoying thinking about certain things is morally wrong in itself.
OK - the people who want things banned generally want things banned because they depict sexual activity, or imply sexual activity that the person disapproves of, or deal with the 'occult', etc. But I don't think it's fair to lump together those campaigns for banning with criticism on grounds of racism or sexual discrimination, for instance. More generally, if art is interesting it is because it provokes thought, and art cannot take credit for provoking thought when it is clever or inspiring unless it also loses credit when it's banal or unethical.
I wouldn't want to ban Ayn Rand or Left Behind. But it seems wrong to say that because they're fiction they can't be criticised. It ought to be possible to criticise 24 for its depiction of torture. (Allegedly 24 did play some part in legitimising torture in the minds of some people in the CIA. I do not think those people were simply misreading.)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But all that is beside the main point. The question in the OP is whether there are ideas that we shouldn't be allowed to make part of our play - that is things we shouldn't be allowed to enjoy thinking about. Fuck that. I remember the joyless shits of the church of my childhood arguing that people like me shouldn't be allowed to play D&D, for exactly the same reasons that today's joyless shits give for video games. It's not about protecting children. It's resentment of other people's love of frivolous pleasure. Since frivolous pleasure ranks amongst the very greatest achievements of our species, opposition to it is simply inhumane.
OK, my turn to call BS.
I can't speak for the folks, joyless or otherwise, at your church growing up, but I will say that for most of us, particularly most of us parents, engaging in this conversation, it is very much about protecting children. It is ALL about protecting children. That doesn't mean me-- or "they" (others who might draw lines differently)-- aren't wrong. That's entirely possible. But even if we or others are going about it in entirely the wrong way and causing more harm than good, the motive is NOT "resentment of other's frivolous pleasure." Like most parents, I find my children's "frivolous pleasure" probably the source of my own greatest joy and "frivolous pleasure" . I also believe, apparently with you, that it is the primary way that children learn, grow, and develop character. So please stop creating a strawman by misrepresenting the motives of those who disagree with you and stick to debating whether or not some degree of censorship of video games does or does not help them reach their goal of yes, "protecting children."
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's two questions here - one is whether certain ideas in entertainment ought to be illegal or banned. And then there's whether enjoying thinking about certain things is morally wrong in itself.
Possibly there are things that it is (sometimes, for some people, in some contexts) to enjoy thinking about. I just don't think that it's anyone else's business.
A recent example from my experience: a friend lent me a DVD of the film "The Boat that Rocked" which I had not previously seen. Fairly early in the film, there's a scene where an adult character about to take a woman to bed, and desirous of doing a favour for a younger character, is trying to contrive a way of substituting this horny, teen, virgin for himself in a way that will not arouse the suspicions of his sexual partner. Morally (though not, at least at the time the film is set, legally), this is basically rape. It is also played entirely for laughs.
I didn't enjoy that scene. I couldn't watch it without engaging my strong sense of disapproval at what was being portrayed, and the discrepancy between that, and the reaction which I took the film-maker to be aiming for, was so great that it put me off watching the rest of the movie*. I could have watched, and appreciated, a similar storyline in a horror film with no difficulty. I hated it in a (purported) comedy.
I wouldn't say that a film with a rape scene is for that reason immoral. I certainly wouldn't say that people psychologically equipped to enjoy "The Boat that Rocked" are less moral than I am. If they can appreciate the slapstick humour of that scene, good luck to them. If they find in it some vein of irony or black humour that I was too dense to see, then I'm cool with them enjoying it. It's just that I didn't, and that I, with my psychological make-up, would be a worse person if I started to find that scene funny, so I won't be watching that movie again.
I've no problem with people who can't, or don't want to, enjoy the darker humour which I can and do appreciate, so long as they don't start saying that my hobbies cross some objective line of moral acceptability. We're talking 'made up stories' here. It's all subjective. Subjective effects on particular viewers are the only things that count, and these are highly variable.
*(It's fair to say that as the film is not, in fact, very good, I didn't require a whole lot of putting off)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That being said, unlike other posters here, I have serious concerns about video game violence. I believe we are seeing effects here in the US. I think lines should and do need to be drawn, and am attempting to draw them with my own children. At the same time, I won't pretend that drawing the lines will ever be neat and tidy.
I have the same concerns. I have them about television and the movies as well. I work with kids who have severe behaviour problems. Over the last few years I've been more and more convinced that a lot of these kids don't have that inner knowledge of "real" vs "fantasy." They seem to see, for example, GTA, as art imitating life, and they take it very seriously, much more seriously than I ever would (yep, I've played it and enjoyed it). For me, its a game. For them, its training.
Its an interesting change for me, because when I worked for the censorship office 10 years ago, I was very against the censorship of games. Now I've seen the effects of the increasing violence of TV/movies/games on vulnerable young people, I'm not so convinced.
Its also an area in which I don't trust the research at all, since it is almost all highly polarised (effects all good, all bad).
Children inappropriately accessing adult material is no reason to stop adults from accessing adult material. Violent video games are adult material, period. The fault is not with the games makers, but with the parents who allow their children to play them. It also sounds as if the children you mention need help with their emotional intelligence, something which is also not the problem of people who make adult material intended for use by adults.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I can't speak for the folks, joyless or otherwise, at your church growing up, but I will say that for most of us, particularly most of us parents, engaging in this conversation, it is very much about
protecting children. It is ALL about protecting children.
I don't think that you're a joyless shit. The criticism wasn't made at you.
quote:
So please stop creating a strawman by misrepresenting the motives of those who disagree with you and stick to debating whether or not some degree of censorship of video games does or does not help them reach their goal of yes, "protecting children."
Protecting kids from what? The wrong sort of fun?
Children don't live in a moral vacuum. Children's TV, films, books, lessons at school, are crammed with 'morals'. Children are exposed to moral teaching all the time. The pro-censorship side conveniently ignores this, apparently supposing that they get all their ethics from Grand Theft Auto. It always picks new technologies to criticise as pernicious. It used to be going to the cinema that would destroy the morals of our nation's children (now grandparents and great-grandparents). Then it was TV. Role-playing games had their moment in the spotlight, before computer games became the new season's villain.
Children (or, at least, a lot of them) have a healthy appreciation for the exciting, the macabre, the rebellious, the daring, the inappropriate and the outrageous. This is A GOOD THING. It means that they are people, that they are human, that they have independent, working minds. The pro-censorship side don't get that, and have never got it. They pick on stuff that's new, that they find uncomfortable, that they don't understand. What the fuck are they protecting children from? From thinking.
I hate it. I loathe the whole fucking disrespect for children that tries to protect them from their own minds. I despise the blanket condemnation of this or that sort of entertainment that denies personal and parental individual responsibility.
Without wanting to impugn your personal motives (seriously) I do think that anyone who takes the view that a sort of entertainment that they themselves don't like is therefore morally unacceptable for everyone has gone badly wrong. I don't like it when people (generally very ignorant of what I enjoy about them) tell me that my hobbies are immoral. I should not follow their example in relation to things that I don't much enjoy.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That doesn't mean me-- or "they" (others who might draw lines differently)-- aren't wrong. That's entirely possible. But even if we or others are going about it in entirely the wrong way and causing more harm than good
I tend to agree with your sentiments - though I also agree with Eliab that it's often new forms of things that come under suspicion.
One fairly clear example of this was the D&D panic - in retrospect I'm sure most of the panic was down to plain ignorance of what was going on.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I can't speak for the folks, joyless or otherwise, at your church growing up, but I will say that for most of us, particularly most of us parents, engaging in this conversation, it is very much about
protecting children. It is ALL about protecting children.
I don't think that you're a joyless shit. The criticism wasn't made at you.
quote:
So please stop creating a strawman by misrepresenting the motives of those who disagree with you and stick to debating whether or not some degree of censorship of video games does or does not help them reach their goal of yes, "protecting children."
Protecting kids from what? The wrong sort of fun?
Children don't live in a moral vacuum. Children's TV, films, books, lessons at school, are crammed with 'morals'. Children are exposed to moral teaching all the time. The pro-censorship side conveniently ignores this, apparently supposing that they get all their ethics from Grand Theft Auto. It always picks new technologies to criticise as pernicious. It used to be going to the cinema that would destroy the morals of our nation's children (now grandparents and great-grandparents). Then it was TV. Role-playing games had their moment in the spotlight, before computer games became the new season's villain.
Children (or, at least, a lot of them) have a healthy appreciation for the exciting, the macabre, the rebellious, the daring, the inappropriate and the outrageous. This is A GOOD THING. It means that they are people, that they are human, that they have independent, working minds. The pro-censorship side don't get that, and have never got it. They pick on stuff that's new, that they find uncomfortable, that they don't understand. What the fuck are they protecting children from? From thinking.
I hate it. I loathe the whole fucking disrespect for children that tries to protect them from their own minds. I despise the blanket condemnation of this or that sort of entertainment that denies personal and parental individual responsibility.
Without wanting to impugn your personal motives (seriously) I do think that anyone who takes the view that a sort of entertainment that they themselves don't like is therefore morally unacceptable for everyone has gone badly wrong. I don't like it when people (generally very ignorant of what I enjoy about them) tell me that my hobbies are immoral. I should not follow their example in relation to things that I don't much enjoy.
Yes, that's a sound and compelling argument of the core OP question of whether some sort of limits/ censorship is effective/ appropriate. That's the sort of discussion that is helpful
And it's most helpful because, unlike your prior post, you aren't misconstruing our motives. Despite your denials here, you WERE impugning my motives and those who wish to "protect" our children.
I appreciate your argument that that very "protection" may, in fact, do more harm than good. I appreciate your argument that children need to explore the same themes, emotions, etc. as adults. I don't entirely agree, but I can appreciate your point. And I can do so more effectively when you recognize that my intent and the intent of most everyone else arguing the pro-limits side is not "jealousy of their frivolous pleasure". It may be a misguided over-protection, but it is certainly not jealous desire to shut down all joy.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
It was Alfred Bandura who showed in the 1960s that children watching other children be aggressive on TV or by direct observation were more aggressive afterwards (does anyone else recall the bobo doll studies?). The effects held for several hours, but he didn't research the prolonged exposure and video and computer games did not exist.
I found a couple of links to the American Psychological Association which states.
quote:
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx
Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior.
quote:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/06/violent-video-games.aspx
video game violence can increase aggression in some individuals, depending on their personalities.
So this suggests that some games are probably bad for at least some children, and this is based on their individual differences in personality, but probably affects all children in some general ways, just like eating lots of sugar is probably bad for all children but particularly bad for this who are prone to diabetes and associated conditions like metabolic syndrome.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Eliab: quote:
I remember the joyless shits of the church of my childhood arguing that people like me shouldn't be allowed to play D&D, for exactly the same reasons that today's joyless shits give for video games. It's not about protecting children. It's resentment of other people's love of frivolous pleasure.
If this is really what you think of my reasons for concern about violent computer games, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. But just for the record, I have played RPGs myself (though Ars Magica rather than D&D); I'm not arguing from a position of complete ignorance, as you seem to imagine.
As no prophet has pointed out, there is some evidence to suggest that video game violence is very bad for some children and may affect the behaviour of all of them. Arabella works with children whose development has been affected by exposure to violent and inappropriate media.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I remember the joyless shits of the church of my childhood arguing that people like me shouldn't be allowed to play D&D, for exactly the same reasons that today's joyless shits give for video games. It's not about protecting children. It's resentment of other people's love of frivolous pleasure. Since frivolous pleasure ranks amongst the very greatest achievements of our species, opposition to it is simply inhumane.
Well that is a steaming pile of reasoning, yeah?
I'd argue while the arguments behind adult condemnation of D&D was were not based on reality, it was not about denial of pleasure. All I've read was about Satanism, in the case of Christians and disassociation with reality, in the case of others.
Not a drop of "We hates you, children, we does."
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I wouldn't say that a film with a rape scene is for that reason immoral.
If rape is immoral, then a rape scene played for fun is as well. You may argue the censorship line, but your moral reasoning is inconsistent.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I hate it. I loathe the whole fucking disrespect for children that tries to protect them from their own minds. I despise the blanket condemnation of this or that sort of entertainment that denies personal and parental individual responsibility.
It is not respect to treat them no differently than adults, it is ignorance.
Children do not reason identically to adults. This is science. Children are not merely adults with fewer experiences, their brains function differently. There brains are being shaped by what they are exposed to.
Though not conclusive, studies seem to indicate that exposure to violence leads to desensitisation. ISTM, for all ages,not just children.
BTW, loads of difference between D&D and GTA. One is imagination, the other is killing hookers.
Yes to game ratings, yes to labeling GTA adult.
Like many other things, the real argument is not censorship or no, but where to place the line.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
As no prophet has pointed out, there is some evidence to suggest that video game violence is very bad for some children and may affect the behaviour of all of them.
That's part of what I hate about the censorship argument. It treats statistical influences on behaviour as causes. They aren't. It's nonsense to suggest they are. People - children included - make choices. They have a degree of responsibility. If you want to stop a child being aggressive, you need to engage with that child as an individual.
I'm not denying that in some cases, restricting access to violent fantasies is going to be a good idea. My own approach to my kids is that I only play fighting games with people who are gentle in real life. And it works for my kids. Fighting games (which they love) have been a way to help them to be much, much less aggressive. I'm sure that there are other kids for whom it would not work.
The censorship side ignores individual differences and choices, and so is dumb, no matter how many statistics it can muster, because every single act of violence is the result of an individual choice by a particular person.
There simply isn't a short cut to good parenting. Even if it were possible to keep all violent games out of all children's hands (hint: it isn't) that's not a substitute for a responsible carer who knows and loves the child making a decision based on actual experience of what works for that person.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's two questions here - one is whether certain ideas in entertainment ought to be illegal or banned. And then there's whether enjoying thinking about certain things is morally wrong in itself.
Possibly there are things that it is (sometimes, for some people, in some contexts) to enjoy thinking about. I just don't think that it's anyone else's business.
I am a bit dubious about the 'I don't think it's anyone else's business'.
It's certainly not a good argument if somebody says that 'if a woman has consented to sleep with one man she has therefore consented to sleep with any man'. They don't get to us 'it's not anyone else's business' to be immune to criticism.
Now, you say that The Boat that Rocked uses a bed trick. It assumes that the implied reader will not have any moral objections that spoil the comedy for them, and that implies that the implied author and implied audience must to some degree endorse the above principle. So why should it's not anyone else's business work there?
It's fiction? But I can think of plenty of fiction which we praise for putting forward the right moral message. Huckleberry Finn, for example. That's a comic novel. Yet when it has Huck preferring to go to Hell rather than turn in an escaped slave, we praise that. So if it's not a category error to approve as it's written, it can't be a category error to criticise it if, with the implied author's approval, Huck had made the opposite choice.
The boundaries between fiction and non-fiction are blurry. There's no rigid wall that would allow one to say, on that side art for art's sake and on this side real life.
That it's possible in moral panics to criticise the wrong thing for the wrong reason, or even the right thing for the wrong reason, doesn't make criticism wrong as such. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You don't throw morality as a whole out of the window merely because some people think some sexual acts are immoral when they aren't. The problem with moral criticism of RPGs isn't that it's criticism; it's that it's inaccurate.
There is I am told a Doctor Who script, never made for television, but subsequently made for radio, in which Zoe is brainwashed by radical feminists and has to be snapped out of it by Jamie smacking her. Finding that grossly offensive, and being glad it was never made for television, is not at all the same as objecting to Doctor Who as such.
[ 07. October 2013, 20:53: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'd argue while the arguments behind adult condemnation of D&D was were not based on reality, it was not about denial of pleasure. All I've read was about Satanism, in the case of Christians and disassociation with reality, in the case of others.
It was entirely about denying people something which was known to be fun, based the assumption that something which was new, and not really understood, was therefore bad. A mix of malice and self-delusion. Just like the video games argument. It's exactly the same shit we've heard before.
Sure, some people swallow these arguments who ought to know better, and therefore really think they're doing right. But they're wrong.
quote:
If rape is immoral, then a rape scene played for fun is as well. You may argue the censorship line, but your moral reasoning is inconsistent.
What?
How?
Why?
Surely what is immoral about rape is that it hurts people? That would be a pretty major moral difference between a rape and a rape scene, surely?
Now for me, and probably for you, rape is so distasteful, a frivolous portrayal of it is also distasteful, but that doesn't make it immoral. There's nothing inconsistent about saying that.
quote:
Children do not reason identically to adults. This is science. Children are not merely adults with fewer experiences, their brains function differently.
Up to a point. But the differences between how individuals respond to various media are greater than just a binary division between 'adult' and 'child'.
And it simply isn't the case that games are the only influence, or the most important influence, on behaviour. Encouraging responsibility, discernment, common sense and self respect is much more important in education. Those things are inconsistent with censorship. You can't simultaneously build someone up to be a responsible adult and tell them that they are so morally immature there are fucking gamesthey aren't allowed to play. Censorship is a surrender of moral aspirations. It says that people can't be trusted to make their own decisions, and that is disrespectful.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But the differences between how individuals respond to various media are greater than just a binary division between 'adult' and 'child'.
I'd be very interested to see the developmental psychology literature which told you this. Because it is manifestly not correct. We make all kinds of decisions about children, such as when they're allowed to drink alcohol, drive cars, make independent decisions etc. The similarity between children regarding brain development is more similar to other children than it is with an adult. The nervous system of adults changes but does not grow the same way as children experience. Simply reflecting on the ease with which children learn languages and can speak without accent would provide some pretty clear info about that. Neuroplasticity is much greater for children and a search regarding that and/or brain development versus adults will inform.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'd argue while the arguments behind adult condemnation of D&D was were not based on reality, it was not about denial of pleasure. All I've read was about Satanism, in the case of Christians and disassociation with reality, in the case of others.
It was entirely about denying people something which was known to be fun, based the assumption that something which was new, and not really understood, was therefore bad. A mix of malice and self-delusion. Just like the video games argument. It's exactly the same shit we've heard before.
Even if your generalization was entirely true, as it may be for some of the critics, your conclusion does not follow. If people "assume something is bad"-- even falsely-- it does not follow then that they are acting out of malice, or even self-delusion. They may be acting out of ignorance, but that is not the same as malice by a long shot.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
If rape is immoral, then a rape scene played for fun is as well. You may argue the censorship line, but your moral reasoning is inconsistent.
What?
How?
Why?
Surely what is immoral about rape is that it hurts people? That would be a pretty major moral difference between a rape and a rape scene, surely?
Now for me, and probably for you, rape is so distasteful, a frivolous portrayal of it is also distasteful, but that doesn't make it immoral. There's nothing inconsistent about saying that. [/QB]
I'm with LilBuddha on this. If rape is immoral, then the depiction of rape for the sole purpose of entertainment (allowing that there may be other purpose for depicting rape in other contexts) is also immoral. It is a different degree of immorality, just as punching someone is wrong to a lesser degree than murdering them would be. But it is still immoral and unethical.
Again, "drawing the lines" is going to be difficult--messy, hard to do. That does not mean the effort isn't worthy.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE]Children do not reason identically to adults. This is science. Children are not merely adults with fewer experiences, their brains function differently.
Up to a point. But the differences between how individuals respond to various media are greater than just a binary division between 'adult' and 'child'.
As noted above, the research does not support your thesis.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And it simply isn't the case that games are the only influence, or the most important influence, on behaviour.
Which is why precisely NO ONE here has argued that.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Encouraging responsibility, discernment, common sense and self respect is much more important in education. Those things are inconsistent with censorship. You can't simultaneously build someone up to be a responsible adult and tell them that they are so morally immature there are fucking gamesthey aren't allowed to play. Censorship is a surrender of moral aspirations. It says that people can't be trusted to make their own decisions, and that is disrespectful.
You seem to fail to understand the whole notion of child and adolescent development. All of those things you want to nurture-- which, by the way, we want to nurture as well-- are developmental. They are learned developmentally. Which is why we don't hand toddlers the car keys. All those things are learned through a process of gradually letting go. We begin with near-total control of an infant-- we control virtually ALL aspects of their lives-- when they will eat, where they will sleep (well, where they'll lie down at least). We gradually give them more and more autonomy as they grow and mature. Giving them absolute autonomy and free choice over every aspect of their lives, including but not limited to media, at as a pre-teen is no more responsible or effective than controlling them and keeping them confined and isolated well into young adulthood would be.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
it is manifestly not correct. We make all kinds of decisions about children, such as when they're allowed to drink alcohol, drive cars, make independent decisions etc. The similarity between children regarding brain development is more similar to other children than it is with an adult.
That can be shown to be obviously false by the simple observation that there is no binary point at which a child becomes an adult. Even in you're argument 'child' has an elastic meaning. The 'child' you're talking about that naturally learns language with vastly greater facility than an adult is very much younger than the 'child' who's development is sufficient to play Grand Theft Auto.
Do you actually know any children? Haven't you noticed how some love playing with guns and swords for the imagination and excitement, others because they like throwing their weight around a bit with their peers, others because they want to fit in with a group? And that there are a few kids who can't be persuaded to enjoy fighting games at all because they hate the idea of anyone getting hurt? Those are differences. They are important differences. They are much, much more important details to know about a child, before deciding what games they might reasonably benefit from playing, than simply their age.
The censorship argument is blind to such differences, of course. Because it is fucking stupid.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now, you say that The Boat that Rocked uses a bed trick. It assumes that the implied reader will not have any moral objections that spoil the comedy for them, and that implies that the implied author and implied audience must to some degree endorse the above principle. So why should it's not anyone else's business work there?
Because films don't always engage on a moral level at all. Sometimes they do, and (IMO) the best films generally do, but not always. There are other ways that they can entertain (or fail to). I don't imagine that people for whom comedy rape scenes work approve of real life rape any more than I do - they just aren't engaging their moral disapproval where doing so would spoil the joke. If the question gets asked, obviously the character's behaviour is reprehensible, but it would be possible (just not possible for me) not to ask the question. I don't think the film-maker had it in mind as the point of the scene – it's just something that I can't help but bring to my response to it. I don't have any problem with someone who can watch the scene for unreflective entertainment doing so.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
it is manifestly not correct. We make all kinds of decisions about children, such as when they're allowed to drink alcohol, drive cars, make independent decisions etc. The similarity between children regarding brain development is more similar to other children than it is with an adult.
That can be shown to be obviously false by the simple observation that there is no binary point at which a child becomes an adult.
Which is precisely the point you are ignoring. Yes, there is no "magic point" when a child becomes an adult. Which is precisely why your no-holds-barred, treat-children-as-adults argument is ludicrous. Children and adolescents go through a process of development. What is an appropriate limitation at one point is an unreasonable limitation at another. What encourages critical thinking and decision-making at one stage would be irresponsible neglect at an earlier stage. Your entire argument ignores this obvious truth. Setting reasonable limits that reflect the reality that children grow in their ability to do a number of things-- not just process language, but also process ideas, media, abstract and representational thinking, empathy is something that reasonable, reflective adults do not out of a malicious desire to rob them of their joy or keep them from becoming autonomous, but rather for precisely the reverse.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm with LilBuddha on this. If rape is immoral, then the depiction of rape for the sole purpose of entertainment (allowing that there may be other purpose for depicting rape in other contexts) is also immoral. It is a different degree of immorality, just as punching someone is wrong to a lesser degree than murdering them would be. But it is still immoral and unethical.
I don't see that at all.
Assault and murder are different in degree, but both of them hurt people. So both are wrong. Depictions of assault or murder don't hurt people. Depictions of rape don't hurt people. If your argument for censorship is based on every depiction of an immoral act for entertainment being wrong, then for me it fails for that reason alone. World conquest is immoral – but I'm not immoral for laying Risk, FFS.
quote:
As noted above, the research does not support your thesis.
See above reply to no_prophet. Obviously the world does not divide neatly into 'adult' and 'child'.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And it simply isn't the case that games are the only influence, or the most important influence, on behaviour.
Which is why precisely NO ONE here has argued that.
No one's dumb enough to say that, but the assumption that we could significantly reduce violence by banning some violent video games, universally, without reference to important individual differences; rather than by encouraging responsible person and parental decision (which requires freedom) making amounts to the same thing.
quote:
You seem to fail to understand the whole notion of child and adolescent development. All of those things you want to nurture-- which, by the way, we want to nurture as well-- are developmental. They are learned developmentally.
On the contrary, I'm arguing emphatically for a developmental understanding. I'm arguing that an individual's developing characteristics and personality are of absolutely crucial importance in judging the effect that various media are likely to have on them. I'm arguing that smart parental controls take all that into account. I'm arguing for knowledge – not merely a generalised knowledge of how 'children' on average respond to stimuli, as if they were lab animals, but for relational knowledge of how this particular child behaves and plays and thinks and has fun, as if he or she were a (developing) human being.
I said out the outset that parental censorship has a place as a means to an end, and that the end it should have in mind is the development of responsibility.
Impersonal censorship is the opposite approach – it says that there are types of fun that we will never be mature enough to decide for ourselves we want to have. Even without the obvious potential for abuse (and it will always be abused) and even without the obvious practical difficulty that it won't work (and it never works), that's enough to show that it is a very fucking stupid idea.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, there is no "magic point" when a child becomes an adult. Which is precisely why your no-holds-barred, treat-children-as-adults argument is ludicrous.
That's not my argument. It's never been my argument. It's almost the opposite of my argument.
Treat children as 'individuals', yes, I said and meant that. Treat them as 'people', yes, I implied that, too. That you somehow manage to hear those things as if they meant treat them as 'adults' is, I think, more revealing of your underlying assumptions than it is of mine.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, there is no "magic point" when a child becomes an adult. Which is precisely why your no-holds-barred, treat-children-as-adults argument is ludicrous.
That's not my argument. It's never been my argument. It's almost the opposite of my argument.
Treat children as 'individuals', yes, I said and meant that. Treat them as 'people', yes, I implied that, too. That you somehow manage to hear those things as if they meant treat them as 'adults' is, I think, more revealing of your underlying assumptions than it is of mine.
OK, I had to scroll back several posts to see where you said that. Sorry-- sometimes in the give-and-take I forget who said what. Yes, in that earlier post-- some 3 or 4 ago-- I agreed with the majority of what you said about individual differences and the gradual developmental process which children undergo. But then in your last several posts you seem to be arguing much more flatly, at least as I read posts such as this:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb]It was entirely about denying people something which was known to be fun, based the assumption that something which was new, and not really understood, was therefore bad. A mix of malice and self-delusion. Just like the video games argument. It's exactly the same shit we've heard before.
...And it simply isn't the case that games are the only influence, or the most important influence, on behaviour. Encouraging responsibility, discernment, common sense and self respect is much more important in education. Those things are inconsistent with censorship. You can't simultaneously build someone up to be a responsible adult and tell them that they are so morally immature there are fucking gamesthey aren't allowed to play. Censorship is a surrender of moral aspirations. It says that people can't be trusted to make their own decisions, and that is disrespectful.
Overall it seems to me your argument is one that parental controls are good, because a parent can know their individual child and what is/is not appropriate for this child at this time, whereas any sort of broader societal censorship is going to be arbitrary and fail to take into account those individual differences. (You also seem to be arguing vs. blanket censorship including banning certain things from adults which I don't think anyone here is really arguing for.)
I would agree with you that individualized parental controls are the better way to go-- in an ideal world. In an earlier post I talked about the messy process by which I make similar sorts of messy imperfect judgments with my own kids-- e.g. some PG13 things disallowed while some R ratings are.
But I'm also aware that this is an imperfect world. In the US, "leaving it up to the parents' choice" is practically enshrined in the constitution. There's good reasons for that-- but we've also seen some disastrous results from an excess of that, from allowing crappy parents to make crappy decisions for their kids. And yes, perhaps someone will think I'm one of those crappy parents making crappy decisions.
I'm not so much arguing any one position. as trying to show the other side, why this issue is so fraught. I think the easy no-censorship/ let the parents decide pov you are (mostly) arguing is just as fraught as what was described earlier as "pearl-clutching" censorship. It's just not that easy. And it never is, when it comes to the real stuff of raising responsible young adults.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Not going to quote you this time. But you are factually incorrect. I should probably let you know that yes, I do know something about this. Professionally since the late 1970s. And personally, my kids are grown.
Brain development. Suggest you consult a first year university text on psychology, followed by a second year child development. Or if you want to just get the basics, how about trying a search. Start here with a little MRI research. quote:
Wikipedia, your friend sayeth:
Using MRI, studies showed that while white matter increases from childhood (~9 years) to adolescence (~14 years), grey matter decreases. This was observed primarily in the frontal and parietal cortices. Theories as to why this occurs vary. One thought is that the intracortical myelination paired with increased axonal calibre increases the volume of white matter tissue. Another is that synaptic reorganization occurs from proliferation and then pruning....
The rise and fall of the volume of grey matter in the frontal and parietal lobes peaked at ~12 years of age. The peak for the temporal lobes was ~17 years with the superior temporal cortex being last to mature.
So we can say clearly that neurological development is not complete until well into the teens. If you have a chance, reading about fMRI research (functional MRI, which means the brain as it actually is processing information) is really informative about the differences in brain function in not fully developed brains, which for some functions are not actually the same as fully mature brains into their early 20s.
Argumentation only works when the data agrees with your arguments.
[ 08. October 2013, 04:01: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would agree with you that individualized parental controls are the better way to go-- in an ideal world. In an earlier post I talked about the messy process by which I make similar sorts of messy imperfect judgments with my own kids-- e.g. some PG13 things disallowed while some R ratings are.
But I'm also aware that this is an imperfect world. In the US, "leaving it up to the parents' choice" is practically enshrined in the constitution.
The thing is GTA V has already been given an an 18 rating in the UK by the GRA and an M rating in the US.
Of course parents are free to ignore that - but that applies, as you point out, to every other media rating also.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If rape is immoral, then the depiction of rape for the sole purpose of entertainment (allowing that there may be other purpose for depicting rape in other contexts) is also immoral.
I can think of 3 films which use rape and humour together, and I think it's hard to draw the line on whether something's solely for entertainment or there's something more.
The Knack has a surreal scene where Rita Tushingham runs around shouting 'rape'. In the context of the film, it's about her confronting Tolen's womanising by fighting back, but it's an intentionally funny, bizarre scene.
There's obviously supposed to be humour in the rape scene (as there is throughout the film) in A Clockwork Orange, though, for me, the sickness of the whole thing overtook that. Of course, there's a strong moral issue behind the film, despite (because of?) the tough content.
And then there's the sickeningly racist, misogynistic and repulsive (despite it being technically entertaining and well directed) Crank films. Jason Statham's been injected with a drug that means he has to keep his adrenaline levels up to survive. Which means that he's totally justified in raping his girlfriend in public. She repeatedly says 'no', but of course, we find out that she really meant 'yes', after he's pinned her down a few times. "You have to have sex with me, or I'll DIE"
Anyway, I'm sure there are others. Carry on, this is a fascinating discussion.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If rape is immoral, then the depiction of rape for the sole purpose of entertainment (allowing that there may be other purpose for depicting rape in other contexts) is also immoral.
I can think of 3 films which use rape and humour together, and I think it's hard to draw the line on whether something's solely for entertainment or there's something more.
Given that I've said at least 3x now that drawing lines will be messy, complicated, and difficult, that doesn't surprise me.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Not going to quote you this time. But you are factually incorrect.
It's a pity you didn't quote what you think you were replying to, because if you had, there's a small chance you would have read it.
I'm arguing that there are significant differences within the class of 'children'. I'm hardly likely to find a link which sets out specific and significant differences within the class of 'children' to be a devastating refutation of my position.
quote:
Argumentation only works when the data agrees with your arguments.
Good for me then.
Look, shall I repeat what I said which you are purportedly disagreeing with?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But the differences between how individuals respond to various media are greater than just a binary division between 'adult' and 'child'.
That is, if you want to try to guess what effect a violent film, game, book, whatever will have on me, you would benefit from having a lot more data than just whether or not I am over 18.
Are you seriously saying that I'm wrong about that? Are you seriously suggesting that your link contradicts it?
BTW, nice use of selective quoting. The last sentence says: "This loss of grey matter and increase of white matter may occur throughout a lifetime though the more robust changes occur from childhood to adolescence." Which is to say, there is brain development in both childhood and adulthood, but (periods of) childhood where development occurs most.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Which is to say, there is brain development in both childhood and adulthood, but (periods of) childhood where development occurs most.
And it's possible - is it not - that playing difficult problem solving computer games can improve brain power, concentration, hand-eye coordination etc?
Maybe the benefits outweigh the damage?
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Which is to say, there is brain development in both childhood and adulthood, but (periods of) childhood where development occurs most.
And it's possible - is it not - that playing difficult problem solving computer games can improve brain power, concentration, hand-eye coordination etc?
Maybe the benefits outweigh the damage?
Many schools in South Australia have experienced great success with using certain specifically selected computer games as part of teaching numeracy, social studies and so on.
Somehow I doubt that GTA, Just Cause or The Last Of Us are among those games though.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Many schools in South Australia have experienced great success with using certain specifically selected computer games as part of teaching numeracy, social studies and so on.
Somehow I doubt that GTA, Just Cause or The Last Of Us are among those games though.
Sure, but all those games have ratings associated with them that would prevent them being sold directly to minors.
The question of the OP seemed more along the lines of; do these games go so far that they should be banned?
It's possible to agree that children shouldn't play them and disagree with that.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Many schools in South Australia have experienced great success with using certain specifically selected computer games as part of teaching numeracy, social studies and so on.
Somehow I doubt that GTA, Just Cause or The Last Of Us are among those games though.
I am pretty sure that playing GTA (a lot) helped my son to get through the assessments to train as an airline pilot.
He is now hooked on GTA V.
I don't like the game one bit, I dislike everything about it. But he is a lovely, well adjusted fella with an excellent attitude to his work. I really don't think it has done him any harm.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
So if we don't want our children exposed to violence, child abuse, mutilation, cruelty ad abandonment we should definitely avoid such awful and horrific examples such as Grimms fairytales.
Okay facetious point aside. I think we do need to be mindful not to expose young children or children at an earlier mental stage of development to excessively violent or heavy subject matter games. I think that for the same reasons I don't want kids to watch movies or read books containing that subject matter. Video games, at least to my mind, aren't so radically different from other media so as to necessitate an entirely different approach.
However, I am a game player. Video games are fun for me. I am not going to sit defending them or my liking of them from a position of needing to prove something. They are just my way of blowing off steam. I have not become violent or psychopathic yet and nor do I plan on being.
People who criticise games in a blanket fashion have often as not almost never spent any time playing them and therefore have difficulty in appreciating the variety in the genres or the constraints placed on the players within the world, even the violent shoot em ups have limits and constraints on who and how you can violently shoot em up. Games are engaging and difficult mentally challenging and awesome fun all at once. What's not to love?
Of course it is every adult's choice to decide whether or not to play these games and if so what games to play. Martin's post about his experience reminded me of my own turn around in regards to horror movies. I watched loads as a teenager/early twenties and now physically cannot stomach the violence in them. The games I play reflect that strand of my character as well.
But really at the end of the day, how far is too far? Same as in comedy I'd say nothing that can be legally and ethically portrayed is too far so long as it serves a purpose in the narrative and is treated respectfully. If we start to censor it stifles our society's ability to have conversations with itself and that never ends too well.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm arguing that there are significant differences within the class of 'children'. I'm hardly likely to find a link which sets out specific and significant differences within the class of 'children' to be a devastating refutation of my position.
...if you want to try to guess what effect a violent film, game, book, whatever will have on me, you would benefit from having a lot more data than just whether or not I am over 18.
More data is usually better than less data, yes.
But if I'm reading your posts correctly (having already demonstrated that I'm having trouble doing that) you are arguing that, when it comes to exposure to media violence, the differences within/ among children are greater than the differences between children as a whole and adults as a whole. I'm not at all sure that is true.
Your position also, again, seems to presume every child has a knowledgable, involved parent able and willing to correctly assess their child's ability to process different media at any particular point of time and make (and enforce) valid and accurate parental decisions on what to allow/ disallow. Would that that were true. As I said, I find this considerably difficult myself, and consider myself a fairly educated (degrees/experience in child development) and have the luxury of a job that allows me & my spouse enough free time to oversee our children's discretionary entertainment. I don't think anyone here, least of all me, is advocating some oppressive government ban that supersedes parental judgment with clumsy one-size-fits-none restrictions. But there is a great deal more tension here than I hear you acknowledging in your posts.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now, you say that The Boat that Rocked uses a bed trick. It assumes that the implied reader will not have any moral objections that spoil the comedy for them, and that implies that the implied author and implied audience must to some degree endorse the above principle. So why should it's not anyone else's business work there?
Because films don't always engage on a moral level at all. Sometimes they do, and (IMO) the best films generally do, but not always. There are other ways that they can entertain (or fail to). I don't imagine that people for whom comedy rape scenes work approve of real life rape any more than I do - they just aren't engaging their moral disapproval where doing so would spoil the joke.
The best, as in most convincing to me, accounts of how fiction works don't work quite like that. We don't disengage our moral judgements entirely. Pretty much all fiction requires us to engage at least some interest in the characters and to empathise with their hopes and fears, and it's hard to be interested in characters without bringing moral judgements into play. There's no clear dividing line between ethical judgements and other judgements. (Besides we're talking about a Richard Curtis film - I can't imagine he's not going to turn on the sentiment tap at some point. He can't get away with arguing that he wants people just not to care. But that's a bit ad hominem.)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm arguing that there are significant differences within the class of 'children'. I'm hardly likely to find a link which sets out specific and significant differences within the class of 'children' to be a devastating refutation of my position.
...if you want to try to guess what effect a violent film, game, book, whatever will have on me, you would benefit from having a lot more data than just whether or not I am over 18.
More data is usually better than less data, yes.
But if I'm reading your posts correctly (having already demonstrated that I'm having trouble doing that) you are arguing that, when it comes to exposure to media violence, the differences within/ among children are greater than the differences between children as a whole and adults as a whole. I'm not at all sure that is true.
I'm not aware of any data that support the position. Personality assessment of children is sparse, partly because the diagnostic processes suggest that personality isn't to be diagnosed for those under age 18. I have not seen any data to suggest that basic temperament, e.g., any of the 5 factor model of personality (which is highly research and statistically based) shows (1) consistent differences within a developing child (2) shows differential response to video representations among children.
There are other variables, such as amount of vid/comp game exposure and parenting. But Eliab wants to argue something about which there is a relative absence of data. Please provide a data source for your contention of differences between children. I am thinking you'd have to show that some children's brains have developed to resemble something other than a child's brain frankly.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm arguing that there are significant differences within the class of 'children'. I'm hardly likely to find a link which sets out specific and significant differences within the class of 'children' to be a devastating refutation of my position.
...if you want to try to guess what effect a violent film, game, book, whatever will have on me, you would benefit from having a lot more data than just whether or not I am over 18.
More data is usually better than less data, yes.
But if I'm reading your posts correctly (having already demonstrated that I'm having trouble doing that) you are arguing that, when it comes to exposure to media violence, the differences within/ among children are greater than the differences between children as a whole and adults as a whole. I'm not at all sure that is true.
I'm not aware of any data that support the position. Personality assessment of children is sparse, partly because the diagnostic processes suggest that personality isn't to be diagnosed for those under age 18. I have not seen any data to suggest that basic temperament, e.g., any of the 5 factor model of personality (which is highly research and statistically based) shows (1) consistent differences within a developing child (2) shows differential response to video representations among children.
There are other variables, such as amount of vid/comp game exposure and parenting. But Eliab wants to argue something about which there is a relative absence of data. Please provide a data source for your contention of differences between children. I am thinking you'd have to show that some children's brains have developed to resemble something other than a child's brain frankly.
I'm not sure if you're arguing my point or Eliab's? I'm arguing that the difference between a child's learning/ development and an adult's is greater than the differences within the group of all children. If I'm reading him correctly, Eliab is arguing (I believe) the reverse. If I'm reading you correctly (why am I having so much trouble comprehending-- or communicating???) you are arguing Eliab's point, not mine-- yes?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But if I'm reading your posts correctly (having already demonstrated that I'm having trouble doing that) you are arguing that, when it comes to exposure to media violence, the differences within/ among children are greater than the differences between children as a whole and adults as a whole. I'm not at all sure that is true.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'children as a whole' and 'adults as a whole'. The 'typical' adult/child? A sort of notional average of all adult/child responses?
If you mean either of those things, then yes, obviously, the differences between children will be greater. Necessarily so, since both are skewed distributions with the same lower limit.
The range in variation between children's responses is between 0 (no discernible adverse effect – or “Boogie's son”) and whatever the most extreme reaction is – call that 10. The typical or average child is somewhere between those two. I think it'll be closer to 0 than 10, since I'm sure we all know many more pretty much innocuous kids than we do monsters, but that doesn't actually have to be true, provided there is at least one Boogie's son in the world.
The range of adult variation also starts at 0 (you can't get lower than no discernible adverse effect), and since the whole rationale for the adult/child split is that children are more affected than adults, the number it goes up to is at least no higher than 10. The typical or average adult is therefore also somewhere between 0 and 10.
The difference between two numbers both of which are greater than 0 and less than 10 must be less than the difference between 0 and 10.
I wouldn't put it in that way, though, since I don't think the idea of a notional average is especially meaningful. I think the best way to express my view is that there are more important things to know than age, when evaluating whether violent media will have an adverse effect on behaviour. I'm not denying that age is very likely to correlate to some degree with susceptibility to images, ability to control emotions, and capacity for judgement. But age alone doesn't tell you very much. There are children who abhor violence, and will actively avoid violent media. There are adults who use it to fuel aggression. Individual differences matter a lot.
quote:
Your position also, again, seems to presume every child has a knowledgable, involved parent able and willing to correctly assess their child's ability to process different media at any particular point of time and make (and enforce) valid and accurate parental decisions on what to allow/ disallow. Would that that were true.
Would that it were true indeed.
I have to say I'm fortunate enough to have had no first hand and little second hand experience of bad parenting.
I don't think censorship substitutes for good parenting, though. Also, the kids without parental controls are precisely the ones that censorship is least likely to touch. So, unfortunately, they're the ones for whom the issue matters least.
quote:
I'm arguing that the difference between a child's learning/ development and an adult's is greater than the differences within the group of all children. If I'm reading him correctly, Eliab is arguing (I believe) the reverse.
There's an important distinction to be made there. I'm arguing about responses, not about development. Children are (almost by definition) growing physically in a way that adults are not, brains included. Clearly there's going to be a difference in development (between children and adults, and between children at different stages of growth). The important question for me is what does that mean in practical terms for attitudes and behaviour: and that's simply not something you can read off a growth chart. Individual differences really do count here.
The difference between my approach and no_prophet's is this: he starts off by asking “Does this game cross the line?” Does it offend some standard of taste and decency? Is it immoral?
My response is “No, it's a game. It's made up. So what if you find it distasteful? Don't play it, then”. What I would ask is this: “Is it a good or bad idea for me/those I'm responsible for to play this game?”. For me it's not about the inherent qualities of a work of fiction, it's entirely about individual responses to it. I don't care whether it's GTA or Lego Racers, if a game were making my child aggressive and violent, I'd take it away. And, conversely, if it had no negative effect, I'd see no reason to do so.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Please provide a data source for your contention of differences between children.
Link.
Still want to argue there are no significant difference between children?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
You are referencing one example within this thread?*
Here is one study. And another. Fully prepared to view any data you might have to indicate a contrary position.
*BTW, no one is saying there are not differences between individual children, only that there are greater between children and adults.
And no one is saying all children will be violent, insensitive to violence or anything like this. Only that exposure to violence can be a contributing factor towards unwanted behaviour.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are referencing one example within this thread?*
Here is one study. And another. Fully prepared to view any data you might have to indicate a contrary position.
Why on earth would I? Neither of those reports contains anything inconsistent with anything I’ve said.
quote:
*BTW, no one is saying there are not differences between individual children, only that there are greater between children and adults.
no_prophet has said that. Look:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I have not seen any data to suggest that basic temperament, e.g., any of the 5 factor model of personality (which is highly research and statistically based) shows (1) consistent differences within a developing child (2) shows differential response to video representations among children. [ …] Please provide a data source for your contention of differences between children.
I’m not sure how else to read that than as a denial that there is (or, at least, a denial that there is evidence of) “differential response to video representations among children”.
Whether he means it is a different question, of course, because a page ago he posted, with apparent approval, a press report that was headed “Violent Video Games May Increase Aggression in Some But Not Others, Says New Research” and which finished off by saying ““Violent video games are like peanut butter,” said Ferguson. “They are harmless for the vast majority of kids but are harmful to a small minority with pre-existing personality or mental health problems.””. So if that doesn’t indicate “differential response to video representations among children”, I really have no idea what he’s arguing for. I suspect that because I’m saying that impersonal censorship is stupid and odious, he’s just disagreeing with anything I say for the sake of it, regardless of whether his arguments are refuted by sources that he himself has cited.
Anyway, my argument is that there are differences between individuals, including individuals of the same age, and that these differences are important. Responsible attitudes to media, including games, take the personal qualities to the individual concerned into account.
Agree? Then we can move on. Disagree? Then I’m serious about my data source. Boogie’s son – fan of violent video games, now non-aggressive well-adjusted adult with a highly skilled and responsible job. If you want to say that he can’t possibly exist, then I’ll laugh at you. If you say that he might exist, but his isn’t a typical or universal response, then you are conceding that there are individual differences between people, and that these differences matter.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The best, as in most convincing to me, accounts of how fiction works don't work quite like that. We don't disengage our moral judgements entirely. Pretty much all fiction requires us to engage at least some interest in the characters and to empathise with their hopes and fears, and it's hard to be interested in characters without bringing moral judgements into play. There's no clear dividing line between ethical judgements and other judgements. (Besides we're talking about a Richard Curtis film - I can't imagine he's not going to turn on the sentiment tap at some point. He can't get away with arguing that he wants people just not to care. But that's a bit ad hominem.)
I’m not sure whether I’m disagreeing with you, because of course I didn’t switch off my ethical judgement, and my consequent ethical response did spoil both the intended joke, and what there was to be spoiled of the rest of the film.
What I’m saying is that some people with similar values, but different emotional triggers, might have enjoyed the joke. An example might be a good crime comedy, like ‘The Producers’, say. I can enjoy the scheming of Max Bialystock’s fraud, laugh at his attempts to make it work, and even (in the context of the story) wish him to succeed, although I would find a similar fraud in real life utterly detestable and not remotely funny. I don’t think many people find ‘The Producers’ spoiled for them because the protagonist is a fraudster – although I’d bet there are quite a few for whom it is spoiled by the frivolous (and intentionally tasteless) treatment of Nazism, since that will push a wholly different set of buttons.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But if I'm reading your posts correctly (having already demonstrated that I'm having trouble doing that) you are arguing that, when it comes to exposure to media violence, the differences within/ among children are greater than the differences between children as a whole and adults as a whole. I'm not at all sure that is true.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'children as a whole' and 'adults as a whole'. The 'typical' adult/child? A sort of notional average of all adult/child responses?
If you mean either of those things, then yes, obviously, the differences between children will be greater. Necessarily so, since both are skewed distributions with the same lower limit.
The range in variation between children's responses is between 0 (no discernible adverse effect – or “Boogie's son”) and whatever the most extreme reaction is – call that 10. The typical or average child is somewhere between those two. I think it'll be closer to 0 than 10, since I'm sure we all know many more pretty much innocuous kids than we do monsters, but that doesn't actually have to be true, provided there is at least one Boogie's son in the world.
The range of adult variation also starts at 0 (you can't get lower than no discernible adverse effect), and since the whole rationale for the adult/child split is that children are more affected than adults, the number it goes up to is at least no higher than 10. The typical or average adult is therefore also somewhere between 0 and 10.
The difference between two numbers both of which are greater than 0 and less than 10 must be less than the difference between 0 and 10.
Huh? This strikes me as absolute nonsense simply because you nowhere tell us what sort of response you are measuring, how, or by whom on what scale. When what we've been talking about here is a whole range of responses that would be measured (with some difficulty) on different scales-- including empathy and various aspects of aggression. So whatever research you're alluding to can only be describing one aspect of a much broader range of things under discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]I think the best way to express my view is that there are more important things to know than age, when evaluating whether violent media will have an adverse effect on behaviour.
I don't know if I'd say more important, but yes, definitely many factors-- and the measurement of that adverse effect will involves several different sorts of scales, not a single score.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Huh? This strikes me as absolute nonsense simply because you nowhere tell us what sort of response you are measuring, how, or by whom on what scale.
Well I was trying to make some sort of sense out of a point you made, which I didn't think especially meaningful. If you tell me how you would measure the range of different reactions within the group 'children' and meaningfully compare it to differences between the adult and child groups as a whole, then I'll say whether I think one is likely to be greater than the other (if I have an opinion at all, that is).
I fully agree that reactions will be varied, complex, and based on multiple influencing factors, whatever group we're looking at. That's part of the reason why I think impersonal censorship foolish. We are not all seeing the same thing when we watch the same film or play the same game.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Huh? This strikes me as absolute nonsense simply because you nowhere tell us what sort of response you are measuring, how, or by whom on what scale.
Well I was trying to make some sort of sense out of a point you made, which I didn't think especially meaningful. If you tell me how you would measure the range of different reactions within the group 'children' and meaningfully compare it to differences between the adult and child groups as a whole, then I'll say whether I think one is likely to be greater than the other (if I have an opinion at all, that is).
I fully agree that reactions will be varied, complex, and based on multiple influencing factors, whatever group we're looking at. That's part of the reason why I think impersonal censorship foolish. We are not all seeing the same thing when we watch the same film or play the same game.
But all those things would be true of say, heart disease-- multiple causes, effecting different people differently in such ways that it's impossible to say to what degree any one individual will be impacted by smoking, stress, heredity, etc. Yet we have (at least in US) warning labels on cigarettes and bans on selling them to minors, simply because they are clearly a contributing (but far from only) factor in a number of health issues. The studies previously cited would seem to suggest the same is true of video game violence.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
We know smoking is damaging. We don't know that about films, TV, games and so on.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Boogie’s son – fan of violent video games, now non-aggressive well-adjusted adult with a highly skilled and responsible job.
Games which his Mum seriously dislikes and wouldn't even look at herself, never mind play. The alternative - prohibition - was worse in my opinion, as it would have changed and spoiled our relationship, which was/is one of trust.
I trusted him not to take any of it literally. I trust that he was going with the story. The books my husband reads are full of murder and torture. I tried one or two (Harlan Coban et al) but same problem - my emotions and empathy won't switch off. They play on my mind.
Clearly this is not the case for my husband or son - they have much better on and off switches.
I think the peanut butter analogy is excellent. You can't ban it just because it affects some adversely. But you can try to make sure that those who will react badly are shielded from it. I am a teacher and some kids 'live' the games in a very unhealthy (imo) way. I have a chat with their parents and make suggestions as to what they might do (restricting time played, talking through, changing games etc)
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
That's right Ken we can never prove it .
If damage to mental or physical health from computer games could be proved beyond doubt then ,(as with smoking), along come the lawyers with their lawsuits and large amounts of money changes hands.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I just think it's unhealthy to spend large amounts of time in front of a computer regardless of whether one is reading about gardening or taking part in simulated images of flailing a person to shreds .
If it were possible to take a helicopter view of humanity's relationship with brutality since the dawn of civilisation , then I would say, since TV and computers, that actual brutality person on person per head of population is getting less and less, (with the exception of war).
Violence is culture based . An individual who chooses to view, or interact with violent images on a screen is not being influenced by surrounding culture. It's an endomorphine thing not an ego thing .
I'm not saying violent computer games can't be used to produce evil they can , the Norway massacre proved that . But again, here we had an individual with an agenda that was culturally based.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
We know smoking is damaging. We don't know that about films, TV, games and so on.
Not true. Upthread you will find links showing a relationship. What we don't know is how much of an impact any particular movie, game, etc. will have on any particular child, or how much a particular child's behavior has been influenced by media exposure vs. other sorts of influences. Which is precisely the case with smoking (although the causal link is most likely stronger)-- you can't say to what degree smoking or at what level caused any particular person's cancer/ heart disease/ etc., or which smokers will get lung cancer & when-- but that doesn't stop us from warning people about the link.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Violence is culture based .
But what determines your culture? One might say one is British or American or Canadian, etc. But, within those general categories are divisions of class, profession and recreation. Cricket player? Goth? Trekkie? And how much does this affect one? Is it casual or everyday?
That which informs our behaviour is varied and nuanced.
To say playing a violent game will directly cause violence, on its own is ridiculous. To say it has no factor is equally ridiculous.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
We know smoking is damaging. We don't know that about films, TV, games and so on.
Not true. Upthread you will find links showing a relationship.
No, upthread we find some innumerate unscientific propaganda supported mainly by anecdote.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
We know smoking is damaging. We don't know that about films, TV, games and so on.
Not true. Upthread you will find links showing a relationship.
No, upthread we find some innumerate unscientific propaganda supported mainly by anecdote.
No Prophet's links (which is what I was alluding to) were from the APA, considered by most to be the leaders in assessing this sort of data and it's effects on children. Certainly not "e innumerate unscientific propaganda" nor was it anecdotal research.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No Prophet's links (which is what I was alluding to) were from the APA, considered by most to be the leaders in assessing this sort of data and it's effects on children. Certainly not "e innumerate unscientific propaganda" nor was it anecdotal research.
Actually doubt has been cast on that paper (which was published back in 2003), including the methodologies, the data sets and the conclusions drawn:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelvenables/2013/10/02/why-two-hundred-twenty-eight-scholars-cautioned-american-psychological -association/
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No Prophet's links (which is what I was alluding to) were from the APA, considered by most to be the leaders in assessing this sort of data and it's effects on children. Certainly not "e innumerate unscientific propaganda" nor was it anecdotal research.
Actually doubt has been cast on that paper (which was published back in 2003), including the methodologies, the data sets and the conclusions drawn:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelvenables/2013/10/02/why-two-hundred-twenty-eight-scholars-cautioned-american-psychological -association/
OK, that's a valid critique. Much different than calling the APA "unscientific propaganda".
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
OK, that's a valid critique. Much different than calling the APA "unscientific propaganda".
Those weren't my words, and I can't answer for ken. I would note however that the critique is fairly strong - and to me the tone doesn't seem that much different. The claims were that the conclusion of the APA had no real evidence to back it up (and thus unscientific).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
OK, that's a valid critique. Much different than calling the APA "unscientific propaganda".
Those weren't my words, and I can't answer for ken. I would note however that the critique is fairly strong - and to me the tone doesn't seem that much different. The claims were that the conclusion of the APA had no real evidence to back it up (and thus unscientific).
You are overstating the article. There was an official statement approved by the APA-- an organization with thousands of members. A small but significant minority of their membership objected to the language of the statement which implied a consensus which they felt did not represent their views. I would agree that's a "fairly strong critique", but that doesn't render the earlier decision of the majority of APA members "unscientific". Nor does the letter anywhere say there was "no evidence"-- rather it said that later studies were inconclusive, suggesting more research was needed. This is what the scientific community does-- engage in debate, continue to research key questions and re-evaluate conclusions based on new data. The fact that all of this happened in an open and transparent process so that an outside entity (Forbes) is able to report on it demonstrates that is happening within a peer-review scholarly atmosphere.
The new data you've supplied should indeed cause me to roll back/modify some of my earlier statements to a degree, indicating the greater degree of debate apparently still at play. But nothing in the article warrants labeling those earlier statements "unscientific propaganda".
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You are overstating the article. There was an official statement approved by the APA-- an organization with thousands of members.
That the APA has thousands of members is irrelevant in this context - the statement wasn't endorsed by thousands of members. The APA publishes position papers all the time that actually represent the position of a small number of researchers in a particular field.
quote:
Nor does the letter anywhere say there was "no evidence"-- rather it said that later studies were inconclusive, suggesting more research was needed.
Actually, the statement also said that the evidence the APA had based their own conclusions on was also inconclusive at best:
"We express the concern that the APA’s previous (2005) policy statement delineated several strong conclusions on the basis of inconsistent or weak evidence. Research subsequent to that 2005 statement has provided even stronger evidence that some of the assertions in it cannot be supported."
quote:
This is what the scientific community does-- engage in debate, continue to research key questions
I'd agree - but the purpose to which it is being put to use in this thread is a polemic one.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Nor does the letter anywhere say there was "no evidence"-- rather it said that later studies were inconclusive, suggesting more research was needed.
Actually, the statement also said that the evidence the APA had based their own conclusions on was also inconclusive at best:
I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between my statement that the later evidence is "inclusive" and yours that both earlier and later data is "inconclusive at best." It is, of course, different from my earlier statement, which is why I accepted/acknowledged your correction.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
This is what the scientific community does-- engage in debate, continue to research key questions
I'd agree - but the purpose to which it is being put to use in this thread is a polemic one.
Yes. Because this is not a peer-review scientific journal, but rather a free-flowing debate forum. The rules and expectations are different.
[ 15. October 2013, 14:44: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. Because this is not a peer-review scientific journal, but rather a free-flowing debate forum. The rules and expectations are different.
Sure, but let's be clear. The scientific evidence in this thread has consisted of a couple of studies from the same scholars (rather than a majority opinion of everyone in that particular field) which exhibit fairly serious methodological flaws.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. Because this is not a peer-review scientific journal, but rather a free-flowing debate forum. The rules and expectations are different.
Sure, but let's be clear. The scientific evidence in this thread has consisted of a couple of studies from the same scholars (rather than a majority opinion of everyone in that particular field) which exhibit fairly serious methodological flaws.
Again, I think that's an overstatement when it comes to the APA statement, even as I acknowledge the caveats you supplied. It still remains the posted statement of THE major scholarly community doing research in the field.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, I think that's an overstatement when it comes to the APA statement, even as I acknowledge the caveats you supplied. It still remains the posted statement of THE major scholarly community doing research in the field.
No. It really isn't. It's a professional body that professionals working in a particular field can all join, which provides multiple functions.
Presumably it has some kind of board which appoints various study groups to report back on various things. Usually such study groups would cover the 'official FooBody position on Education' or something relatively non controversial. Even so it would be inaccurate to characterise these as 'the opinion of the majority of professionals in this field.
Any more than any statement by EAUK formed study group represents 'the opinion of the majority of Evangelicals in the UK'. Especially when the study group appears to have suffered from group think.
You really can't characterise this as a position supported by 'THE majority of the scholarly community'.
[ 15. October 2013, 16:20: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, I think that's an overstatement when it comes to the APA statement, even as I acknowledge the caveats you supplied. It still remains the posted statement of THE major scholarly community doing research in the field.
No. It really isn't. It's a professional body that professionals working in a particular field can all join, which provides multiple functions.
Presumably it has some kind of board which appoints various study groups to report back on various things. Usually such study groups would cover the 'official FooBody position on Education' or something relatively non controversial. Even so it would be inaccurate to characterise these as 'the opinion of the majority of professionals in this field.
Any more than any statement by EAUK formed study group represents 'the opinion of the majority of Evangelicals in the UK'. Especially when the study group appears to have suffered from group think.
You really can't characterise this as a position supported by 'THE majority of the scholarly community'.
Which, in my amended statement, I did not say. What I said (above) was that the major recognized scholarly group doing research in this field still presents this as their position paper, even if there is serious disagreement within the community. You are quite right to want those objections from within the field noted-- and I've done that. At the same time, you are overstating nature of the dispute.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To say playing a violent game will directly cause violence, on its own is ridiculous. To say it has no factor is equally ridiculous.
I would go along with that view to a degree . The same as we used to think TV affected our behaviour, in that it was always believed people copied what they saw .
In fact I still remember the intro to 'Batman and Robin', where the two actors had to give a warning to young viewers not to copy them . IE jumping out of an upstairs window with a cloak on thinking they could fly , (we still did it mind ).
But even given all that TV we used to watch most of the violent games we played were based on the war . In hindsight I would say growing up in a post-war culture influenced my attitudes towards violence much more than the visuals off a TV screen.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
All the assumptions on this thread presume good parenting. I'm currently working with a 13 year old* addicted to GTA V, has been since it came out. It was bought for him by his family because "everyone else had it" and "he couldn't miss out when his mates all have it".
Now, this is just one of a whole host of problems, including gang culture, family problems with the law and lack of involvement with education. How sure are we that these games aren't feeding into the violence that characterises the London Gang culture? (There's been a recent huge campaign in the London Standard).
* I only ever work with the complicated kids.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
All the assumptions on this thread presume good parenting.<snip>
How sure are we that these games aren't feeding into the violence that characterises the London Gang culture?
We can never be sure as to what exactly feeds, or triggers a person's potential to commit a violent or harmful act. In the past many of Britain's notorious killers did not suffer bad parenting as such .
I think getting ideas from computer games and then carrying out real-life violence can no more be proved than the TV argument which raged for decades . Computer addiction is a problem , but it's a different one from the above .
In purely pragmatic terms it could be said that a computer addict is less of a hazard to society , simply because while they're gazing at a screen they're not out and about doing wrong.
[ 19. October 2013, 13:37: Message edited by: rolyn ]
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
A few random thoughts while I wait for my smartphone games to build what they are building or respawn things I can do.
I am a committed gamer, of a sort. The very first computer game I ever played, on a TSR-80, involved violence. You built a kingdom and sent soldiers to steal grain and kill other soldiers. I spent hundreds if not thousands of dollars via quarters in the 80s in video arcades.
What I found is I have always enjoyed the campaign and simulation games, like Sim City, CIV, Simutrans, Football Manager and Hattrick. Thankfully, I have avoided console gaming, which has been pretty much always about beating, winning, destroying etc.
Now, with the rise of smartphone games, I have noticed again a lot of violent games. E.g. for about a week, I played a game based on Scarface. It was a mind numbing grinding game, based on shooting people and beating them up.
Which raises an interesting point:
Stand alone Console games are pretty much all about the experience. They have your money and are just providing you something to play within. The violence is used to keep people interested.
Smartphone games are all about keeping you there. Coming back...and spending money if you want to move ahead of others - the freemium game. Violence isn't necessary.
Although violence will still be involved, ultimately, I see gaming moving to less about the sensory enjoyment of experiences, including violence, and towards the constant involvement model.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0