Grand Theft Childhood? Are they implying that GTA has taken over children's lives?

It's a book. To show that violence doesn't derive ONLY from video games in a kid's life.

Umm.. there crazy to believe that people especially parents have time to read this.

I'm sure it's a compelling book but ca mon who really gonna pick it up and read and give it a chance. What's easier looking at a tv special or taking the time of reading a book which is easier just to say no to your child.

@Ra on the A-Team:

Doesn't it?

/27 year old child

STOP!!!
Do you hear it coming? Those faint footsteps that you've heard before?

It's Jack Thompson, walking all over GTAIV.

The media needs to evolve and stop looking at video games like it's some big new scary thing, as though they are stuck in a time loop circa 1980.

Typical. GTA always seems to be the poster child for supposed video game and violence links.

Quick! Pick up your copy of GTA IV before Thompson gets it banned from the world!

In all seriousness, the article itself is a good, if brief, read. The author is actually levelheaded and discussed many of the more important highlights of the book.

I honestly don't know what these people expect. Its like they want every single game thats released to have an E rating or something.

Games aren't just for kids, people. There are games for kids, and games for adults. Same as in movies. You can't tell Hollywood that every movie has to be an animated Pixar film thats rated G just because you don't like the content of a few R rated movies.

The first GTA i ever played was when I was 11. It was GTA 1 for PC with the sky helicopter view only. haha

@Ra on Indiana Jones: *Facepalm*

When are you all going to realize that video games invented violence?

Seriously, I would rather have my child be subject to tyrannical parenting and a government that controls all forms of entertainment and live a life full of perpetual hatred and bitterness, then to have them play, for even one minute, that... abomination... that is... *sob*... GRAND THEFT AUTO IV!!!

DAMN YOU ROCKSTAR!!! THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS!!!

@Huxleyhobbes: Haha, there's a word for that? Neat.

*facepalm's for the hell of it*

The linked article is actually more fair than what I seemed to gather from the title.

Did any of you who are crying foul actually read the article?

Musgrove doesn't have anything against GTA or other violent videogames. All he states is that despite its M rating and numerous warnings about the content of the game, kids, especially 12-14 year olds still have access to it.

Beyond that he is simply writing about the book, Grand Theft Childhood, and how it breaks down the possibly flawed studies that place a correlation between videogames and violent youth.

So next time please read the article before you grab your torches and pitchforks.

The article is good.
Read the article.

Why are people crying foul?

The article is pretty nuetral. If I had to pick a side for it, I'd say it's for GTA more than it is against GTA.

Almost nobody read the fucking article I see.

@phillyred05: For a second there, I wasn't going to comment, thinking I was the only one that actually read the article and that no one else would know what I was talking about. Haha. You pretty much nailed the jist of it there, though, if anyone else is lazy. But who am I kidding, most people don't take the time to read the whole comment discussion, either!

Anyway. I think I might pick up "Grand Theft Childhood" next weekend, just for kicks. Should be an interesting read, at least. I've been jonesing for a book to read for while now.

@Witzbold: Of course not. Why would someone want to make informed judgments? :p

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
- Maxwell Scott

The Washington Post article says that GTA is practically an industry itself, with the possible EA takeover and analysts predicting it will affect the opening weekend of Iron Man.

It didn't seem like he was really saying that much. Maybe I expected more ranting and raving on the author's part, but he never delivered. The article seemed more like a plug for the book "Grand Theft Childhood" than anything else.

Also, it the article says, Out of a sample of 1,250 kids, aged 12 - 14, GTA ranked first for boys and second for girls and game playing has risen while violence has gone down. However, the couple that wrote the book says that doesn't really mean anything.

Good to know that a single game can have such a chokehold on other markets, corporations, yet show no real distinct link between human behavior.

@phillyred05: I think most people are talking about the subject in general, not just about the article. This has already been discussed here numerous times before, and people are just expressing their displeasure that some people, not the author, but other news media are still acting as though video games are for children. I'm sure most of the people here read the article, and it is pretty short, so they just make comments about the reasons that this article had to be written. Which is because some parents and people in the news media still think violent video games lead to violent kids.

@Witzbold: Common sense isn't very common these days...

Grandtheft Childhood sounds like a really good read. The title is too sensationalistic and sounds like its going to rip violent video games but really we should be championing this book because its one of the few studies that actually looks at the link between violent video games and actual violence as opposed to prior studies that only looked at the short term physiological effects and increased aggression directly following game play.

The one thing i found most interesting about their study was they found that children that did not play any games were often found to have the biggest problems. The authors even cited the virginia tech shooter who's roommate and dorm mates noted that he never played any video games.

Point being dont write the book off cause of the title, actually read about it.

@Witzbold: I guess it's the same as usual here.

I actually enjoyed the article, but I believe that Schoolimangooli has a point. There are so many busy parents these days (mine are never home anymore), so they probably wouldn't read the book or even the article. My fear is that parents would buy the game for the kids just to keep them from whining instead of enforcing the rules.

People over here just have to see the words "games referenced in a news article", and burst into bitchism mode, where they say the entire world is against them and the media is horribly uninformed.

I already own the book, I got a good chance to read the first chapter as I hid from a hail storm in a parking garage. Great read so far. They point out many of the studies that are quoted by the likes of the infamous JT, and it is hilarious to see how off they are (1980?, 12 people?, Roflmo?)

@Witzbold: Yeah, I was a little disappointed about that...
I was surprised because the authors are very earnest in the studies, and when the research supported no link, they were open about their findings. I just wonder why the Washington post bothered to include it at all seeingas how it didn't support the angle they are going for.

@Witzbold: @ShaggE: @phillyred05: @KM91: @mquest: So are you people telling me there ISN'T people out there in the media that think violent video games lead to violent children? Because from what's been posted before, it's seems that many media people think that.

No offense to any of you, but don't think that the people on here are complaining because of what the author said, it's what he said being true is what everyone is complaining.

@Ashurahori: Well for the most part, the bitchism is justified but I know what you mean, maybe we've just gotten so used to having to defend our beloved hobby that we enter auto-defense mode the minute we see something like 'Games kill kids' or something similiar.

Still, it's nice to see that someone from a popular news source is taking a stance that is opposed to the popular media's opinion.

I do hope that at least some of the Washington Post's readers who have children of their own pick up the book and maybe learn a thing or two about parenting concerning video games.

This seemed strange to me:

"The authors' research team asked 1,250 kids to name some video games they'd played in the past six months. GTA was at the top of the list for boys, way ahead of the Madden football games and Microsoft's sci-fi blockbuster, Halo. Among girls the same age, the game was No. 2, behind the Sims."

First off, this could be suspect, considering GTA IV hasn't even come out yet. But obviously they mean older GTA games, though they don't say which ones. So basically they're grouping all of the GTAs into one giant GTA, meaning the statistics are a bit stacked.

That, and they said games played in the past six months. They didn't say they played it a lot; they said they played it, maybe only once. For girls, that seems more likely, as I think (statistically) the games girls play most are games like the Sims and WoW.

The research just seems shoddy to me, not specific enough, slightly skewered simply to prove their point.

Not that I am arguing with their findings, but still: if most video game research is like this, it shows why the media doesn't know what the hell they're talking about most of the time.

@Huxleyhobbes: *waves at MILF*

@Ashurahori: Yes. Jesus, I don't think a lot of commenters even bother to read articles any more.

I've actually been chomping at the bit to pick up a copy of this book and read it, unfortunately finals have gotten in the way.

@peAr_nectAr: Yes the article makes this research sound pretty shoddy, but the article is probably giving a basic overview of their findings. I don't expect a Washington Post article to go very in depth on this subject, and the authors probably wouldn't want them too. They do actually want to sell this book.

IMO, if the research is as good as anything Gentile and Walsh have done, or W. James Potter then this book will be quite influential in the communications, media policy, and child development fields.

Gameplay! Gameplay! Gameplay!

+ Watch video

@Schoolimangooli: So, you're essentially saying:

"ZOMG BOOK IS TL;DR WHAT'S THE POINT"

Hunh. I do believe that a little bit of my faith in humanity just died.

@peAr_nectAr: You've read other pop-sci books, yes? The specific methodologies used are generally glossed over, and not given the detail that a paper submitted for peer-review would receive. Plus, their conclusions are not entirely based on that one snippet alone. And finally, you're quoting the journalist's take (which has to be simplified for mass public consumption) on the research book (which is most likely simplified for mass public consumption). You're criticizing filtered, third-hand received knowledge, man. Surely you see what's wrong in that scenario?

Even then, I personally don't see what's wrong with the survey, taken at face value. Judging strictly from the wording used, everything you said about their survey could be said about the other games mentioned; if they're grouping the GTA titles, then they're also grouping Madden, Halo, and the Sims + its endless expansion packs. And I think that whether they played it a lot or just once within a six month period is beside the point, since I think the goal was to prove/reinforce just how popular/mainstream GTA actually is, with higher "mind share" (to borrow a marketing term) then many other titles.

Point being: it's good to be skeptical. However, being too skeptical leads straight into irrationality. And I do think you're being much, much too skeptical. You can't just question the data; you have question the context.

@peAr_nectAr: I dont know that the book has been peer reviewed but the methodology seems ok to me as a psychology major. The major thing being the sample size. Although it may be true that some kids only played gta once, the large sample size accomodates for these outliers. Also all the gta games should give similar experience so grouping them together shouldnt be a problem.

@JustThisGuy: No what I'm saying is that a lot of parents don't have the time to sit and read a book on video games for their kids. Its just easier for a parent to flip through the news and listen to their opinion and make their own assumptions. Because let's face it there are for more important things that parents have to deal with than read a book to sway there decision in allowing their child to play a violent video game. When it easier to say no.

Plus your so called 1337 speak made me die a little inside.

@Schoolimangooli:

Quote, emphasis mine:

"Umm.. there [sic] crazy to believe that people especially parents have time to read this."

I don't know, dude. That's a pretty all-inclusive statement, right there. You're also making a lot of broad assumptions about a very large and varied demographic.

Tell you what: I'll stop using pretend 1337 speak if you take care of your grammar a bit. Deal?

Quoting from the article: "Olson said, real-world statistics paint the picture as vividly as any research. 'In some ways, it's common sense,' she said. 'Game playing has been going up and violence has been going down.'"

Take that Jack Thompson, you unending douche.

Check out this wikipedia page for the epic truth: [en.wikipedia.org]

@JustThisGuy: Yes I'm making broad assumptions and of course there would be people that would read this. If they truly want to cultivate the parent demographic they should put out a documentary or come out in a news excerpt. Thanks, for pointing my grammar problems by the way I know I'm not perfect when I come and write on these boards but if you come out here on purpose and write in that mediocre slang that has to be far worse,and by pointing out my flaws in grammar is not gonna win doesn't justify any argument your making. This is my last post because if I keep responding to your post I'm doing nothing better than feeding your trollish mindset.

It's nice to know that instead of just throwing the blame on video games all the time, someone did an actual extensive research project and not throw a bunch of b-s around. I think it would be wise for parents and the media to pick this one up. Especially Jack Thompson. I hope you here me out Jack.

I actually think the title is clever. Hooking in the people who need to read the book, not the ones who are supporting it.

I just finished reading this book last week and I've been recommending it to any parent with a kid 40 and under. Even my own mother should read this to help correct her perspective (I'm 31).

The title is too sensational because it signals to many the opposite of what the findings reveal (and many just go by the title alone to form their opinion).

But it's a truly excellent book and one Kotaku peeps would enjoy and should promote.

I read the book and found it pretty bad. I do appreciate that they take a new perspective on the argument (it is definitely more appropriate to look at bullying rather than extreme violent crime), but their methods for the study are poor at best. The level of criticism they apply to previous research is not applied to their own studies. And overall the general tone of the book is pandering to video game players and not presenting a fair and unbiased view (as they propose they are doing).

Additionally, they contradict themselves frequently. For example, they suggest at one point that "T" rated games may actually be of greater concern than "M" rated games. In their analyses looking at aggression variables, however, they compare "M" rated game players to non-"M" rated game players. Now even they still find an effect of being an "M" rated player vs. not leading to increased aggression, but if "T" rated games are all that bad (which I don't personally believe) then violent "T" rated games should have been clustered with the "M" rated games. Or separate groups should have been set up to compare increasing levels of violence in the games regularly played rather than arbitrarily dichotomizing the variables.

@Vincent060: Thanks for pointing that out for the people who didn't catch it.