Games - the ethics issue

Very good article.
When some people say that there has been research that video games can make the player more violent after playing, then I believe that is true. But it is the same with any game or sport. You lose at football, you get angry. You lose at poker, you get more angry than usual. This anger is no different than that which apparently happens after playing video games. People need to realise one thing There is a difference between getting angry, and blowing somebodys head off

Great article and some good points, but i didn't realise the BBFC only applied to England?

BBFC=British Board of Film Classification
Well, actually, it applies to the whole of Britain :P

Yup thats what i thought i just wondered if any one else would acctualy get that

Originally Posted by ozstriker
Very good article.
When some people say that there has been research that video games can make the player more violent after playing, then I believe that is true. But it is the same with any game or sport. You lose at football, you get angry. You lose at poker, you get more angry than usual. This anger is no different than that which apparently happens after playing video games. People need to realise one thing There is a difference between getting angry, and blowing somebodys head off

I play gta, but I dont go around stealing cars. Its because I can see the difference between the virtual and real world. If anything I get out any agression I have in a game, I guess thats because I am a very passive person who instead of solving problems violently can do so in a more civil way. I can see that as graphics and the realisim improve there will be more problems with this sort of thing. And since there is no real way to tell if someone will be able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality the age rating system is probably the best way to determine who has enough presence of mind to make the distinction.

I thought this was a good read and was amazed at how much Germany banned and or censored. Green blood, come on.

Originally Posted by article
To some degree, they appeal to our laziness - we don’t have to get hot and sweaty or wet and cold when we decide to play, nor do we have to leave the comfort of our own homes

Hmm, I play online games because they offer entertainment and enjoyment, nothing to do with being lazy.
I also play(ed) football for the same reasons (need to start playing again).

Originally Posted by article
Society is also a crucial factor here: it used to be the case that kids could go out and play in the streets without a care. With our growing fears over child abduction and abuse, is it any wonder that parents are happy to see them having an enjoyable time in the comfort of their living room?

Life is no more dangerous now than it was 60 odd years ago, but media saturation would lead you believe otherwise.
We have 24 hour news, with umpteen channels fighting for the latest breaking news. You are force fed horrific accounts from all over the globe straight into your living room, whereas years ago news was what happened locally, this leads to the appearance of a more dangerous world.

Originally Posted by article
Directly, online shooters are not and can never be held responsible for children and adults being fatter and more socially reclusive - the people who play the games are responsible for that and only if we were to live in a state where forced exercise was part of every day life could the government change that. There is no denying that the massive increase in videogaming over recent years poses social questions, but the answers do not lie in the game, they lie in the people who play them

As you say the problem lies with the individual, if it wasn't a video game it would be something else, some people will spend hours with their head in a book, other will watch countless hours of TV, some are gym fanatics, some will sit in the pub all day.

Originally Posted by article
Computer games are edging towards creating images as realistic as possible. The environment for gaming is evolving, with online communities existing for every conceivable game from Half-Life to Sudoku. Companies are investing money on creating tools that in the future will influence and further immerse us in our gameplay. Games of the future won’t just look realistic, but will feel and sound realistic too.

Much like television and movies, they are presented in higher resolution, better sound and greater special effects, all making for a more realistic experience, maybe we should be careful and advocate a return to old black and white pictures just in case someone unstable enough is effected.

How we handle the content of games, and their inherent nature, over the next few years could set us on a course that will last for many years to come.

Again much like movies and television there are age ratings, these need to be respected, harsher penalties for shops that break the rules by selling to minors would be one step, but I fear the greatest barrier is parents - many simply take no interest in their children’s development, it's easier to plonk them in front of a TV or plug them into a video game than to do the work themselves.

Originally Posted by article
Is it dangerous that games have got to the point where people are killing each other and divorcing each other over them? Shouldn't we be examining their content, clamping down on this scourge in society? The unfortunate truth is that far lesser things have been responsible for far more. A computer game is a hobby, and like any hobby can get out of hand. So Championship Manager has been cited in divorce cases: big deal, footballing obsession in 'real life' has been cited in thousands. People have been killed for their iPods. Should we ban football and music?

Well said, it is not the game that is responsible but the person.



When we hear stories of a shooting and that the killer was addicted to such and such a game, inevitably the media will come to the conclusion that the game was to blame.
How about the person was psychologically unstable?



Games are just another hobby, much like any other, some people will become completely absorbed in games whilst others will use them as a time filler.
Games are no more dangerous than movies, television or reading for that mater.
The question is, do you consider those to be dangerous?

i use to use games to de-stress, i used to play UT and chage the names to the names of teachers that were making me mad and also their faces and put them in godlike and go and frag them to oblivium. none of them are dead. And i would be calm enough to study.

i play games, violent sick twisted games since i was a small kid, i am now the most responsible and most calm of all the people around, i am the calmest person of my family and in most opinions the smartest, the others (that dont play games) skiped school, and my parents are realy dumb.

Yeah, people do also game to de-stress. It takes your mind off things. :)

It helps to let off nervous energy, I played call of duty 2 for 4 hrs straight yesterday and it only felt like 20 mins, and I felt calmer afterwards. I could also argue that it made me too lazy to want to be viloent.

'...whilst wondering round cities looking for people to string up...'

Shouldn't that be 'wandering'

hah, good article

about the whole rating system, it doesnt work because no one cards, i havnt been carded for a game since i was 14 except when i went to alaska

On Postal 2 you could use a cat as a silencer amongst other things.

Wow, I've never even thought about that being, even... a possibility... I mean, are cats very soft inside? Does this even work in real life? Wouldn't the bullet bounce off, a bone, or something? I also think it would be so very messy.

Excellent article. Bit tech writers seem to have a knack for writing articles that are pretty unbiased, while not being longwinded.

Reading an article about this problem makes me look at and into myself a lot more... if I were in a jam, would I use a cat as a silencer? After playing so many games in my life so far, have I been transformed into a killer?I'm pretty sure the answer is no. I don't think games can create a violent, malicious streak in people... but it wouldn't be too implausible to think that they mght "itch" an already prominent undertone of violence in someone's personality.

One can't blame the creators of the more violent games. They're just responding to the blatant demand for it. Look at Black for the X-Box: almost all the reviews I've read so far have been saying it's a great game, except "WHY DON'T THEY HAVE BLOOD IN IT?!".

As such, I don't expect game makers to stop shipping bloody or gory games, but I wish more of them added options to disable the gore, since my idea of a good-looking game is not one where severed limbs and mangled bodies lie in pools of blood wherever you look.

Found this and if it's real, my god even football games make people go loopy!

Yes, we should ban football. I believe its influence to cause all problems in the uk, from bullying in schools, to chav hooligan culture.

As for violence in games - you just need to read the warning at the start of postal.

And how many of you have said casually that "i'll kill you" if you dont do this, that or the other.

Besides, why actually go out and kill someone if i can do it on my pc, without any of the nasty consequences - like the other person actually dying, or prison, and stuff.

As for classification of games, for kids, i still think its up to the parents to decide - and if they dont want their kids to paly a game its up to them, not some guy in an office in london, in the same way you wouldnt take a 5 year old to watch a 18 cert horror movie.


EDIT:
Movie posted above, with REAL translation.
http://couchblogging.com/insanekidvideo.html

Originally Posted by MrWillyWonka
Found this and if it's real, my god even football games make people go loopy!

Well, its ebaumsworld, so by nature it's going to be a) fake and/or b) stolen from somewhere else.

If the kid is german, why his he managing bradford city? And somehow grunts are translated into insults like 'knob cheese'. It was posted a few weeks ago somewhere else and we worked out he's playing an FPS.


edit: http://www.break.com/index/patiencechild.html

Music = Unreal Tournament 2004

He actually yells "I DON'T NEED HELP!" several times.

He clearly needs mental help ¬.¬

When your a kid you love blowing ppls heads off in games, you dont do it in real life because theres consequences... youve got to determine the age at which the player can understand the 'rights and wrongs' of what theyre doing the in the game.

Everyones different in the life experience so its impossible to get the age rating bang on correct for every person.

Weve got to a point where survival is boring... we earn money, we spend it.
games are a very good way to entertaining us, banned games are 'too much' for ppls mind to take.. my m8s got a big handful of banned dvds and he enjoys them... but whos to say that hes right in the head?

As long as your not harming anyone else then you should be able to live your life how you want... just because some prat has killed a load of ppl and is blaming it all on games, its his fault... no one else is killing ppl because of games?!?!?! why change something when its only affecting the said few, whos to say that something else would have eventually had the same effect and pushed them over the edge

hope that made some sense

Originally Posted by Darkangel
When your a kid you love blowing ppls heads off in games, you dont do it in real life because theres consequences... youve got to determine the age at which the player can understand the 'rights and wrongs' of what theyre doing the in the game.

That is a VERY hard age to determine.

I'm 17, but I got GTA3 when it just came out (my sister who's 6 years older then me) so I got it when I was 12. When I got it, I thought I understood the "rights and wrongs"....even though I didn't start going out and beating hookers or killing my neighbours, I still felt the effects.

When my dad was driving, I was thinking "This is taking forever... why can't we just drive across the curb".... then I though "What a stupid thing to think"....or something along these lines.

The point is, that these games don't say "kill your neigbours" they do it subconciously.... so that you're not aware you're doing something wrong... it's persepective... like smoking...(not that I've smoked) it's easy to say you should quit, but it's a lot harder to do it when you're hooked.


looking back, I should've respected the ERSB.... thankfully, to curb my mind, my dad actually paid attention about the ERSB about Vice city... to which I still have not played... but got GTA:SA.... and now that I'm older... I no longer have that subconsious feeling to just drive over the curb, or drive on the sidewalks... hopefully a good sign.

Originally Posted by Darkangel
As long as your not harming anyone else then you should be able to live your life how you want...

Again, this is where the line get's fuzzy.... should we detain possible terrorists? they haven't done anything YET..... or possible pedophilles? or what's considered harming? so are you saying we should be able to run around naked and expose ourselves to little kids like that? the whole ethics thing is fuzzy... and life is not black and white... the above was simply my experience being on the boundaries of my stay in the "fuzzy" areas of the line

I dunno I'm what you could call a hardcore gamer but quite recently I've been amusingly addicted to a small popcap game called zuma deluxe, now this only happened last week but I found myself in a daze and lost about two hours just sitting playing this game. It's only came to light now what happened. It was in the paper's when someone noticed a guy matching my description down at the pond, I was stuffing coloured balls up a frogs ass and thumping him with a fist so the balls flew out the frog's mouth and connected with matching coloured balls i had previously set up. The frog died from my erratic beating and my brother never did get his golf ball's back. So i dunno maybe games are bad for you...... or maybe these a**eholes want to stop blaming everybody and anything relating to bad behaviour and crack down on the psychology behind these people after all there has been plenty serial rapist's murderer's etc that never got any further than playing pacman and i somehow can't connect these crimes with that little yellow dude, nope not one bit. The world's a bad place and probably is gonna get worse before it get's better but bottom line is it aint games, movies, music etc that's to blame for this its the individuals themselves!

I should learn paragraphs huh :D

Originally Posted by stereophonie
but bottom line is it aint games, movies, music etc that's to blame for this its the individuals themselves!

so you're making the statement that games/movies/music FOR SURE do not create violence AT ALL?

How can you say that?

what about little kids who pretend their power rangers and act it out?.... or how do you explain ever single black guy (here in BC) dresses like gangsters from MTV? or the popularity of the TNA clothing line?

You're saying that media has nothing to do with it? I don't believe it, the trends in clothings and style and fads that exist proves that the media do in fact cause people to change.... just like how a few years ago, none of those disco huge ass sunglasses that paris hilton wears were in style... and now they are.... and I'm pretty sure that trend started in hollywood... the people get addicted to the celebrities (proof? look at tabloids...) and they they copy them through the means of media.

If a kid pretended to be a westler and killed another kid (it happens) the should the kid be held responsible? (I'm talking like 6-12 years old)

clearly the criminal will hold the kid responsible, but to a lesser degree... ie. the kid is not going to be penalized as if I did the same thing... why? kids are just stupid. Their brains are scientifically proven to be still developing, and that they don't fully comprehend the situation no matter how much they say they do. So whhile I do agree individuals should take responsiblity, I still believe ERSB is usefull in preventing kids from running around and shooting people.

In the end we're all to a certain degree a end product of social conditioning, sorry about the pretensious answer. But yes games do effect us, some times they inspire us in a positive way while other times not so positive.
So yes games, like whore houses, strip clubs, uncles Wong's message and other social venues should have restrictions to it's audiences.
In short the rating system helps plenty.

Originally Posted by N/A
If a kid pretended to be a westler and killed another kid (it happens) the should the kid be held responsible? (I'm talking like 6-12 years old)

Very good point.

sits down and shuts up*

Originally Posted by N/A

If a kid pretended to be a westler and killed another kid (it happens) the should the kid be held responsible? (I'm talking like 6-12 years old)

No, the kid might not be responsible (assuming they deliberately and knowingly killed someone by re-enacting what they see on television). The parents should be held responsible. Not the media, not the schoolteachers, the parents. Any parent that isn't capable of teaching their children the difference between right and wrong, should not have had kids. Blaming the "media" is their way of not facing up to their own failings as a parent. People nowadays seem to be all too keen to place blame anywhere but at their own doorstep, regardless of the circumstances.

I thought the article pandered to some media stereotypes that are dangerous (i.e. that games have been responsible for violent acts), which are simply untrue. The parents of the victims of the Columbine massacre sought to sue pretty much every game publisher after that horrific event. In my opinion, the fact that the two guys had access to such an array of weapons at home was the issue, not a few games of Doom. The fact that their parents failed to spot the fact they were clearly depressed and disturbed was a factor too. Games alone cannot and do not make killers. I'm not saying they can't contribute to desensitising someone. I'd go so far as to say that games don't desensitise someone, just provide some inspiration to already dangerous fantasy, that might cross over to real life (psychologists help me out on this one!).

The problem in the US is that kids have easy access to adult material in games. There needs to be a system in place that makes it illegal for retailers to knowingly sell adult material to minors. Like we have here in the UK (as an aside, as far as I'm aware, the BBFC classification on games is voluntary - publishers request a game to be classified. The more cynical among us might even say that they seek an "18" rating to drive up sales). There also needs to be an education of the general population that "games" aren't all Pokemon and SuperMario, and contain very adult themes. Most parents that bought little Jonny GTA:SA for Xmas wouldn't dream of letting the same child watch a movie like "Boyz in da hood", or "Colors", or any other realistic violent movie. At least I hope they wouldn't.

I’m continually amazed by the number of adults, some with kids some without, that still see games as for kids, irrespective of the content. Games should be covered by the same restrictions as movies. And to avoid even more cases of the hot coffee incident the ratings of games need to be given to an independent classification board, the BBFC for instance in the UK, and really a similar body needs to be set up in the USA. Its all very well to say the industry will self regulate, but the industry will continue to push the boundaries and with out independent regulations trouble will continue to seep though. To my mind children are influenced by everything around them, books, movies, games and real life. And hence restrictions are put in place till they are mature enough to cope with making their own decisions. For adults however you should be more than capable of determining right from wrong, irrespective of out side influences. You make your own decisions and you live with the consequences.