Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 11:27 PM
Sat Dec 5
30 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
03/28/09
If they DID, however, everyone would quickly dismiss them as a mental case. After all, the public would say, "I saw No Country For Old Men, and I didn't go out with a suppressed shotgun. The guy's a nut, throw him in jail!" they would cry. But since everyone saw No Country, but by comparison no one (in the mainstream public, you know who I'm talking about) played GTAIV, they have no problem assuming a connection could exist, because they have no personal experience with it. The abuse of games in the media seems to be a double standard rooted in the public consciousness, that is doubly bad because those same citizens without a clue happen to make up the media, by and large. This is not a war we will win any time soon.
03/28/09
Where do you see this going? What do you see as hopeful? Because I don't. The authorities are still playing the drug war game and it has been, what, 50 years since it became some big open, talked-about, national agenda? And we, not just bloggers but I mean established media presences have recognized the fallacies of these and any number of other ad-hoc assignations of blame to sources other than humanity as a blamable thing. But media awareness didn't matter. Doesn't matter.
Media is money, and the people out for money aren't going to tell their slavering-for-answers patrons that "well kids, sometimes shit happens. Deal." They're going to say it's drugs or gays or god or trans fat or insert-your-political-party-here. Show me where the media has foot its foot down and demanded people stop screwing around and distributing blame left and right in a big, impactful way. Show me. Not because I'm interested in arguing or starting some petty flame war. But because I want to believe.
03/28/09
03/28/09
PETA has a go at COD because you kill attack dog's in what is a simulation of a historical event. The dog's were there, it'd be stupid to remove them.
However the 'Family Friendly Wii' has a mascot who goes around killing tortoises and PETA don't bat an eyelid. Theres no historic or factual reason for using tortoises, Miyamoto just chose them.
03/28/09
03/28/09
You forgot that PETA must have missed out on Wolfenstein 3D.
03/28/09
03/28/09
03/28/09
03/28/09
03/28/09
I will agree that media sensationalizes what people want to hear, just to make a buck...but to argue that "random" things just "happen" is a very ignorant worldview. No offense.
Thunder does not just "happen", nor do earthquakes, births, deaths, or anything else that exists. Everything happens for a reason, whether or not it is impossible to discern exactly what that reason is.
03/28/09
03/28/09
You can't answer that with reason, you can explain it as if the attacker had a mental illness and they were in the wrong place at the wrong time right? But Why this particular couple? Bad luck?
It's a lot easier to accept that video games were the reason rather than being in the wrong place at hte wrong time or because someone was born with the wrong programming and it all came to a head at that particular point in time. I guess I just wanted to say that it is a lot easier to blame it on something that we can control as oppose to something that we can't.
03/28/09
I almost put a sad face emoticon, but it really doesn't do it justice.
03/28/09
It has gotten to the point where being a gun owner is just one small step away from being a mass murderer. And now it is happening to the gaming community.
Do video games make people become violent or murderers? No more so than guns. Sure, I suspect that in some cases there is linkage to playing video games and acting out that violence in the real world just as there is linkage to guns and people who commit violence upon others.
The point is that guns don't kill people, video games don't make people inherently violent and forks don't make people fat.
03/28/09
03/28/09
I think the Gun Owner=Psychopath is just related to the US, though.
Statistics show that theres more guns in Canada than there are people. Hell, my Dad gave me one of his for my 18th birthday, on the promise 'we'll go hunting together' one day. Seven years later, I still havent done it with him, so the poor thing has collected dust in my closet. I don't know shit about guns, so I don't even know what kind of shotgun it is, except if I put shells in it and pull this thing towards me, I can blast something.
I'm pretty sure my dad only gave it to me because he knew I was too much of a real life anti-violent person to ever even use it. Turns out he was right. He could have given me a broken firearm and I wouldnt even know it by now.
However, that being said...
If someone has a predisposition towards violence already, such as growing up in a gang culture or with a violent family or etc, the gun could easily be seen as a way of 'enforcing ones territory'. And by territory, I mean views, way of life, location, so on and so forth. Like someone above you said, theres a growing trend of male tough guy persona normalization amongst media... and I think moreso than gun control, THATS what needs to change, and gets people killed.
+1 btw, just because I don't think NRA members are psychos. Some of you are a little nuts, but hey... so are some christians, some members of government and even some video game players! :)
03/28/09
Yes. They most certainly do. Guns do not have any influence aside from previously attached stigmas. Guns are not multimedia entertainment that can (and do) influence millions of people.
The point is, video game violence does make people more violent. My point is that it's no more than violent movies or news. But, really, it's a chicken and egg discussion. I would argue that video games are violent because our culture is violent in nature. Developers don't have some secret agenda, they just want to make money. What sells? Violence. Why? Because Americans love themselves some violence.
Look at the way we report death comparatively to our own citizens and abroad. When death is discussed in an American context, it is always very hush-hush and "oh my god this, oh my god that", plus it's always overly dramatic. But, when talk about killing "enemy combatants", we casually throw around sayings like "killing the bad guys!" and other euphemisms that see death as positive or just inconsequential.
03/28/09
Knives kill people too.
I guess we shouldn't be allowed to have any.
And cars? They can kill people. In fact, they do. Probably, war and genocide excepting, more than guns. Guess we shouldn't be allowed to drive them.
Handguns... yeah, we don't need those. Or semi/full auto machine pistols or rifles. You don't go hunting with those. Those are people killers.
But guns are tools. They can be used for good or bad.
You want an example of something that is just plain bad, try bombs. Or date rape drugs. Or cocaine.
03/28/09
03/28/09
03/28/09
Only if you hold them sideways. Or yell 'POP POP POP' when you fire them.
@cxmnky:
Uhm... no.
A purpose of a gun may be to harm deer, but thats so we can eat them. I don't believe in hunting for sport, its a waste of natural resources.
Many people would say the purpose of some video games is to train you to harm people. The Army, who was reported to be testing and training soldiers with video games, would agree with this.
Ever hear of the game 'Americas Army'? It was a recruiting tool, originally. To get you into the army. To HARM people.
My comparison wasn't so off... but it was more so comparing guns to knives to cars to etc... things that could be used both ways.
@harakiri_love:
You don't need bombs unless someone else is going to harm you with bombs. So if we both didn't have bombs, you wouldn't need them.
Haha, you can't reeeeeally say we've got some bad things in existence (like date rape drugs) simply to provide examples of what not to do.
But I see the Cocaine use. I didn't actually know about novacaine, d'oh.
Cmooonnnn theres gotta be SOME things out there that we really dont need.
03/28/09
Snuggies.
03/28/09
Guns are weapons. Weapons are tools. Video games are neither.
03/28/09
What would cultists wear that look bland and robelike, but ALSO keep them warm on those cold, cold sacrificial altars?
03/28/09
Guns can be tools.
Video games can be weapons.
Americas Army and the book Enders Game have shown me this.
03/28/09
@harakiri_love: Guns and video games both fall into the commonly accepted realm of "violent stuff," but serve very different functions within that realm.
03/29/09
The point that you missed is that there is a stigma attached to gun ownership even though the majority of gun owners are peaceful, law abdiding citizens. Likewise there is an effort to stigmatize people who play videogames as violent sociopaths.
03/29/09
Actually there has never, ever been a study to confirm that. The most that people have found is that violent video games can make people more aggressive. Violence and aggression are not the same. The thing is, after playing these types of games and getting all ramped up, you should go exercise or play a sport.
@cowboyshootist: Screw the NRA. "We need guns on college campuses so kids can defend themselves!" Yeah, because arming a bunch of young, dumb kids with a wealth of new found freedom who are binging on all sorts of drugs is a great idea. What could possibly go wrong?
@cowboyshootist: Thanks for the tip. I never knew The Simpsons was a cartoon. I guess I can scratch "meet Homer Simpson and shake his hand" off my "to do before I die" list.
In all seriousness, though, just because it's a cartoon doesn't negate the implication that owning a gun can give people a sense of empowerment. You say it doesn't empower you. Well, great. But that doesn't mean jack shit. Your experience is not universal. There's tons of people I have met who have an attitude of, or have literally stated, "fuck you. Bring it on. I have a gun at home and one in my car." They have a sense that, because they have a gun, it gives them immense power and control over others.
The funny thing about the 2nd Amendment is that gun ownership was included in case of need for a militia and in case the people needed to overthrow the government if it became tyrannical. With jets, bombs, and tanks being the norm today, I don't think your handguns and shotguns are gonna do much to overthrow the government. There's no need for militias since we have a massively robust military. The sentiments of the 2nd Amendment is antiquated bullshit.
The fact is, people who own guns are much more likely to die from gun violence. Why? Because most violence occurs from either a family member or someone close to that person. Most of the time it is a family member using a household gun to kill another. Humans are stupid, petty, and cruel creatures that often let their emotions overrule all sensibilities.
There are numerous responsible gun owners, but there are lot more stupid people. And when those stupid people get a hold of a gun, they now have a powerful tool to inflict harm in whatever stupid manner they wish to. When you combine that with poverty, which begets desperation, then you have a recipe for disaster. Stupid, desperate people who will do anything to get ahead. This is, most likely, the reason why gun violence is so much less in a place like Canada despite them actually having more guns. Because the wealth disparity in Canada is so much less than here in the States. People think the problem is guns, but it's not. The problem is poverty and wealth disparity.
03/29/09
Video games could at best be equated to books/film/any other type of mass-produced media. At their most dangerous? Maybe a training simulator. But -nobody- ever bludgeoned anyone to death with a bluray disc to my knowledge. Guns are weapons. They're made to shoot things.
As far as having a gun as a preventative measure? The Cold War wants to talk to you. Having everyone armed doesn't equal security. Not by a long shot. I don't choose to live my life as a victim- but I do choose not to live in fear. I never said gun owners aren't necessarily law-abiding citizens, or bad people, or that shooting a gun can't be fun. But I will disagree, 'til I draw my last breath, with them on the issue of owning a firearm. Even if I find myself at the unfortunate end of the barrel. Simple as that.
03/29/09
03/28/09
/FACEPALM
03/28/09
03/28/09
That would be pretty bitchin'. But still. That quote. DURP DURP DURP
03/28/09
03/28/09
03/28/09
Why don't any of the reports ever seem to notice that it's always MEN and BOYS that commit violent crimes. I believe the latest statistic (don't give me the statistics arguments either, tards) is that 94% of all violent crime in the States is committed by men.
We can't look at games for this reason. We have to look at the broader societal implications of how we idolize violence.
With that being said (and it was brief and simple, I know) violence in video games is a problem, just not THE problem. We rely to much on violence for pretty much everything, including movies and television. Games should be less violent, but so should all media that influences mainstream culture.
03/28/09
Watch a movie called 'Tough Guise'. It pretty much reinforces everything you just said.
When boys or male teens commit crimes, its usually reported as 'Kids killing kids' or 'Kid kills classmates' or 'Children killing each other'.
When male gangmembers kill each other, its just 'Gangbangers kill other gangmembers'.
When a FEMALE child or female gangmember commits a crime, its always, ALWAYS 'Female gangmember' or 'Girl commits' or etc etc.
Its become so regular in our society for males to be tough, violent jerks that we only take exception to when females do something like that.
A good example the movie gives is all the movies over the years that have men commiting violence to each other. Hundreds upon hundreds.
Thelma and Louise comes out, theres a huge stink over weather or not they're man haters, they're wrong, they're over violent and so on so forth. Yet throw two males in that role, minus the killing of someone of the opposite sex (in a two-male instance, it would be a female), nobody would have blinked an eye.
Good vid. Opened my eyes quite a bit to stuff I didn't see before.
03/28/09
Why don't they blame laser tag and paintball? Those are even more interactive than video games, and they "simulate murder" on a rather blatant level as well.
03/28/09
03/28/09
Technically, you've never seen someone's head a-splode at all. What you saw was a 3d representation on a 2d plane of a human in a digital fantasy world created specifically with a head a-splode animation when you shot nothing but a number run against other numbers to see if your digital bullet hit aforementioned head to cause a-splodation.
03/28/09
But then, blaming them would upset too many people, as all it takes is a pair of eyes to see a movie, regardless of age. Even still... go to the people old enough to remember when there wasn't such violence in movies, and I'm sure they'll tell ya those movies today are 'terrible' and 'examples of how society has crumbled'... not advanced, when advanced should be the word that is used.
So we can't blame violent movies anymore because they are too popular. As opposed to blaming violent video games, which are played 'stereotypically', by teens and young twentysomethings, because
a) We're, on the whole, more adaptable to this new technology, therfore, people in our age range handle/play/adapt to it better
and
b) We are now able to play video games approaching (but still LIGHT YEARS) away from movie violence, thanks to graphical advances
that while video games might no longer be a clique thing thanks to the wii, the violent ones still fall into the target range for things that can be picked on.
Rock and Roll... remember how music drove people to violence? But those music listeners have now aged and can still listen to the music. Can't pick on rock and roll so much anymore cause its got too wide of an audience that includes teens and oldies alike. But what about DEATH METAL???? Oh yeah, thats open game!
Gays? Gays being child touchers and unholy vermin? Can't say that anymore. Those gays grew up. Society became more liberal. Sure, you can try to say that, but theres enough legitimate news sources out there who will tell you to stuff it. And by legitimate, I mean those same news sources that consider themselves 'cutting edge' cause they wont blame a gay or a rock and roll listener, but video games are still fair game.
I'm looking at you, fucking CBC and your handling of the Brandon Marsh case when the parents fucking came out and said, on your own damn network, at an earlier time, WE DO NOT BLAME THE VIDEO GAME FOR THIS.
Jesus christ fuck
/endrant about how stupid society has become towards picking and choosing targets
03/28/09
"...have had far more of a subconcious impact to the mind in terms of normalizing violence than video games."
The APA will disagree with you on this. Research has so far backed up the model that acting out the violence, like you do by controlling characters in games, reinforces behaviors a lot more than movies.
"We are now able to play video games approaching (but still LIGHT YEARS) away from movie violence, thanks to graphical advanced"
Video games are much more violent than movies. One criteria for violence is certainly the number of kills, and video games will almost always beat any movie out for that. In fact, psychologically, the repetitiveness of killing is one of the main reinforcers of violent behavior. As for actual gore, yes, some movies certainly will beat out games.
"But those music listeners have now aged and can still listen to the music."
Psychological research here also suggests that repeated listenings of music will increase your thoghts of the topics in it. Specifically, while many argue genres like nu-metal and death metal may be 'theraputic', in reality they will often increase thoughts related to the lyrical topics (in those cases often self-loathing and murder, respectively).
Science is against you, but these theories are based on statistical analysis. Individuals have thier own choices with how they react to art, but when looking at a large enough of a random sample you can expect those effects.
03/28/09
"One criteria for violence is certainly the number of kills, and video games will almost always beat any movie out for that."
I can name a few movies with more kills than video games. The newest Rambo... quite a few war movies... etc.
Dyknow who runs the APA? Older males. Who probably don't play video games. I'm not arguing with your findings, I've read quite a few studies on it myself as part of my course material. You have to question their methods.
They never have parents in the room going 'this is wrong, this is wrong, lets talk about this'. A lot of times, to prove their point, they're giving M rated games to 15 year olds, which shouldn't be happening anyways. They leave a bunch of kids playing video games for a while, then record their answers to questions aftewards.
Yknow what happens with children who watch a lot of violent movies or... dare I say it, WRASSLIN? They try to act it out. They start flipping each other into piledrivers and atomic bombs. They make homemade, backyard wrestling sets.
If you don't have a moral guide to help you with whats right and wrong, then you can't say video games are more prone to make kids violent because you let them run amok with them. If your parents didn't run outside and tell you to STOP! before you snapped little timmys neck by diving off the picnic table with him pretending to be shawn michaels, then it was your parents who did something wrong there.
I'm all for not blaming the parents for every little thing... but the studies done make me uncomfortable. Not because of the results, but because of the methods.
""But those music listeners have now aged and can still listen to the music."
Psychological research here also suggests that repeated listenings of music will increase your thoghts of the topics in it. Specifically, while many argue genres like nu-metal and death metal may be 'theraputic', in reality they will often increase thoughts related to the lyrical topics (in those cases often self-loathing and murder, respectively)."
Oh, I whole heartedly agree. But if you actually take the time to pay attention to most 'nu-metal' and 'death metal' and etc etc... they actually dont usually talk about shooting up a school, hating who you are, or killing some people. Its about fighting dragons, how crappy it is to feel unpopular, fighting 'the power' and funnily enough, just like pop songs, about a girl or a boy.
I'm not saying there isnt music out there that is reinforcing negative ideas. But you cant blanket cover a genre or idea because of a small part of it. Theres a bunch of hip-hop and rap that is terrible for reinforcing bad ideas. But not all of it. Some metal does the same... once again, not all of it. The APA, and the media, are horrible for that. Its much easier to lump things together for simplicity. It usually goes like 'okay, some is bad, but some is not bad, and you should listen to it or watch it with your kids to figure out which is which... NAHHH FUCK IT RAP AND HIP HOP ARE BAD FOR SOCIETY'.
Also... until I see Clockwork Orange: The Video Game, Movies will always have crossed a line beyond what a game has done yet.
03/28/09
Oh, and thanks. Good reply. :)
03/28/09
03/28/09
The new Rambo. A previous Rambo. The movie Commando.
I mean, a lot of war movies in general. But Rambo, unlike most war movies, is about one guy slaughtering half the earth.
Okay, if you're playing the same game over and over and over and over, such as a multiplayer game, the kills are endless.
But then I guess you could play the movie again and again.
03/29/09
Even the new Rambo, with it's 236 kills, has less than I've slaughtered in an average 40-minute game of L4D (700+ last night).
But those are zombies. You want people? Take any FPS, say, Soldier of Fortune 2. They have you killing 30-40 per stage/mission.
Heck, check out how many people you kill/incapacitate in freakin Streets of Rage. What's the average body count in a game of Contra?
And keep in mind, the first Rambo had one single kill.
For reference purposes: [www.darkhorizons.com]
Ridiculous? Yes. Not nearly as ridiculous as most games though.
03/28/09
03/28/09
03/28/09
03/28/09
03/28/09
03/28/09
Let's say I'm arrested for a murder I committed (hypothetically of course) and when I'm arrested I'm playing LBP. They look at the ESRB description on the back and say, "Mild Cartoon Violence. Bad enough for us."
Really people? Just think for once and you might get somewhere.
03/28/09
Final Fantasy VII? Blamed for murder? REALLY?
03/28/09
03/28/09
03/28/09
Maybe the next one will have some sense.
03/28/09
03/28/09
That's life. Something comes along, old people who don't understand it criticize it and fault for the downfall of civilization.
When we're all in our 50's/60's, we'll have the same problem. It never changes.
03/28/09
Too bad future generations won't be able to spell because of text messaging. :\
03/28/09
03/28/09
Older generation: It wasn't rock and roll! It's those damn video games that are making kids stupid!
This generation: Stupid old people, video games don't make people stupid! Anyone can see that it's text messaging!
Next generation: lolumad
03/28/09
Rule 49. Come on, everyone here know's it's true.