Originally posted by FeceMan
Umm...it's a fact because it has been proven in experiments? I'm not saying it is an excuse; I'm just saying that children imitate behavior to which they are exposed. (Read: children. Not adults.)
Again, there are also experiments that have "proven" otherwise. As AC said, it's not a fact untill it's undeniable, this is deniable for numerous reasons, thus, it is not fact.
As I said, the only children it does affect are those who don't know that a videogame isn't meant to be taken seriously and don't know that they shouldn't attempt actions because a video game did those same actions.
The studies that are being discussed are talking about teens and older kids, not 4 year olds.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I never said it caused violence in teenagers like Columbine. And there are some parents out there who would do that.
parents... so the blame is with the parents... not the game...
Originally posted by BackFire
As I said, the only children it does affect are those who don't know that a videogame isn't meant to be taken seriously and don't know that they shouldn't attempt actions because a video game did those same actions.The studies that are being discussed are talking about teens and older kids, not 4 year olds.
true...
Re: Re: Violence in Video Games
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, it does. Behavioral psychology has proven this through observational learning.HOWEVER...
Young minds are much more impressionable than older minds. Teenagers are not going to pull out a gun and start blasting people because they saw it on DOOM 3. Desensitization may aid this act, though, but to blame the videogame is to relieve responsibility from the shoulders of the parents. If a child were to play a violent videogame, he or she would be more likely to imitate the acts in the videogame...
But I'm not blaming videogames at all, just saying what behavioral psychologists would say.
Also, I think that Manhunt is WAY over the top in violence/gore, bordering on sadomasochistic voyeurism...blech. Just a thought that occurred to me.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Quoting because people seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying.Also, I think that Manhunt is WAY over the top in violence/gore, bordering on sadomasochistic voyeurism...blech. Just a thought that occurred to me.
i understood you perfectly...
Behavioral Psychology can be disputed very easily... because every test subject is different...
and as for manhunt... i've seen a lot worse in movies... it was overhyped big time...
What exactly do you want? You don't want kids to do that stuff in real life, you don't want em to do it in games. I'm curious as to what it is you're trying to achieve here.
Mental patients could play a game then go and reenact it. It's not just kids. There was a guy in Singapore who strolled into a movie theatre and froze 3 people with liquid nitrogen because he thought he was Sub-Zero, back when Mortal Kombat came out. A Man. Not a kid.
I'd rather have it happening in games than in the street and if it happens in the street as a result of an influenced gamer, it's not the games fault. It's the guy's.
It might be a fact that the kids studied were influenced. It's not a fact that kids who play games are influenced.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What exactly do you want? You don't want kids to do that stuff in real life, you don't want em to do it in games. I'm curious as to what it is you're trying to achieve here.Mental patients could play a game then go and reenact it. It's not just kids. There was a guy in Singapore who strolled into a movie theatre and froze 3 people with liquid nitrogen because he thought he was Sub-Zero, back when Mortal Kombat came out. A Man. Not a kid.
I'd rather have it happening in games than in the street and if it happens in the street as a result of an influenced gamer, it's not the games fault. It's the guy's.
It might be a fact that the kids studied were influenced. It's not a fact that kids who play games are influenced.
-AC
Kids are influenced by observational learning, and I'm saying that they were influenced by watching other people in real life do things (as well as on the television). Young minds are impressionable and they will be influenced by what they have seen. It doesn't mean that they are going to act out or display aggressive behavior; it could be as minor as mild desensitization, or something even less.
AC, I don't WANT anything. Like I said, you guys are misreading my posts. I have stated information about observational learning. I have never said that violence should be removed from videogames. Not once. I am not attempting to achieve anything aside from stating my opinion and giving information about behavioral studies.
"Not once. I am not attempting to achieve anything aside from stating my opinion and giving information about behavioral studies."
Let us not forget about you applying the term "Fact" where it doesn't belong to give yourself credibility.
Again, YOUNG kids are influenced by observational learning, like 5 year olds. Of course those kids who are ridiculously underage are more likely to be influenced, the topic of discussion is about older kids and teens. This is what's being disputed, teens and older kids being influenced by video games, not toddlers wno don't know any better.
Only dumbasses take games seriously and decide to jack a car or shoot somebody because of something they did or said. It seems quite obviouse that they have mental issues along side with personal problems or something along the sort. One guy tryed to sue the rockstar company and made this comment. " its not my fault, the guy off of Grand Theft Auto did that so that influenced me to do it " I mean how stupid can you get? Unless your a dumbass then violence in video games for entertainment should not be an issue.
"Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions" by Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D. for the American Psychological Association Psychological Science Agenda Volume 16: No. 5, October 2003: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. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).
Myth 2. The studies that find significant effects are the weakest methodologically.
Facts: Methodologically stronger studies have yielded the largest effects (Anderson, in press). Thus, earlier effect size estimates —based on all video game studies— probably underestimate the actual effect sizes.
Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).
Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have the same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).
Myth 4. Field experiments are irrelevant (aggression measures based either on direct imitation of video game behaviors (e.g., karate kicks) or are normal play behaviors.
Facts: Some field experiments have used behaviors such as biting, pinching, hitting, pushing, and pulling hair, behaviors that were not modeled in the game. The fact that these aggressive behaviors occur in natural environments does not make them "normal" play behavior, but it does increase the face validity (and some would argue the external validity) of the measures.
Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.
Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).
Myth 7. Violent video games affect only a small fraction of players.
Facts: Though there are good theoretical reasons to expect some populations to be more susceptible to violent video game effects than others, the research literature has not yet substantiated this. That is, there is not consistent evidence for the claim that younger children are more negatively affected than adolescents or young adults or that males are more affected than females. There is some evidence that highly aggressive individuals are more affected than nonaggressive individuals, but this finding does not consistently occur. Even nonaggressive individuals are consistently affected by brief exposures. Further research will likely find some significant moderators of violent video game effects, because the much larger research literature on television violence has found such effects and the underlying processes are the same. However, even that larger literature has not identified a sizeable population that is totally immune to negative effects of media violence.
Myth 8. Unrealistic video game violence is completely safe for adolescents and older youths.
Facts: Cartoonish and fantasy violence is often perceived (incorrectly) by parents and public policy makers as safe even for children. However, experimental studies with college students have consistently found increased aggression after exposure to clearly unrealistic and fantasy violent video games. Indeed, at least one recent study found significant increases in aggression by college students after playing E-rated (suitable for everyone) violent video games.
Myth 9. The effects of violent video games are trivially small.
Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass. Furthermore, the fact that so many youths are exposed to such high levels of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this risk factor (Rosenthal, 1986).
Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.
Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing.
Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b) youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.
i would like to add. i am a gamer, a major gamer, i play a range of violet and well adult games under age limit, whoopy do? i aint a bully, i aint killing people or hurting others, only myself 😑 im a clumbsy ****er but heh. i played violent games when i was little for gods sake, and the worst that happened to me was my style and taste in music and people o.O from the age of 5 i think ive had violent games and well i aint no god darn drug addict and murding rapist or anything. dude, if people follow a GAME pixels of grafic design and ideas slapped together and think its real they need a ****ing theropist. if at most, games influenced me to take a career in grafics design and game creaton. not become a drug overlord, murder, undercover agent, a zombie hunter or dragon slayer ya'know? o.O.
hope that helped some how 🤨
AC. x
Originally posted by AnImE_ChAoS
i would like to add. i am a gamer, a major gamer, i play a range of violet and well adult games under age limit, whoopy do? i aint a bully, i aint killing people or hurting others, only myself 😑 im a clumbsy ****er but heh. i played violent games when i was little for gods sake, and the worst that happened to me was my style and taste in music and people o.O from the age of 5 i think ive had violent games and well i aint no god darn drug addict and murding rapist or anything. dude, if people follow a GAME pixels of grafic design and ideas slapped together and think its real they need a ****ing theropist. if at most, games influenced me to take a career in grafics design and game creaton. not become a drug overlord, murder, undercover agent, a zombie hunter or dragon slayer ya'know? o.O.hope that helped some how 🤨
AC. x
There's a lawsuit coming your way. Use of copyrighted material.
-AC
Originally posted by Julie
There is a difference between senseless/tasteless and realistic or necessary violence to make a game enjoyable
I think a good example of this would be the 2 new Prince Of Persia Games.
'Sands Of Time' was all magical fairytale like, and the enemies were made of sand, so when you stabbed them, they burst into sand instead of bleeding blood everywhere. This gave the violence a more rewardingly visceral feel, rather than resulting to gore.
'Warrior Within' was the 2nd game, and they changed the atmosphere of the game entirely, the enemies were still made of sand (i do not know why due to story reasons), but when you killed them they erpted blood from every orifice, making it un-necesarily violent compared to Sands Of Time.
I still absolutly adore both games though, and would still call you weird if you went stabbing people due to warrior within, i just felt i should give an example to Julie's point.
it depends how you look at it, CM... you can also say that because in SOT there is no blood, some nuts would not realise the horror they can create when killing others because of the unrealistic approach there
but y'know, all in all... I think games have absolutely nothing to do with those killings, it's that they aren't mentaly stable enough to handle reality