Lucky for my children I don't listen to people like this and understand what and how to restrict my children and use something called "adult supervision"

GabooN

This is why CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX, FOXNEWS all need to stop recruiting people in applied fields (such as silly lawyers and psychologists who do treatment rather than research) to come on their talk shows. They should be asking people like Craig Anderson, Brad Bushman, Nick Carnagey, and (to toot my own horn here) myself.

We can give a more accurate picture of what the research shows. Now, some of us might still blow it out of proportion on occassion and use columbine as an extreme example. But this is usually conditional.

Oh and kudos on being part of the small minority of individuals in the general public to be willing to actually look up the source articles and question the research from there rather than what is printed in the popular press.

graddy

dv8godd

djomg

On the myst vs wolfenstein comparison in studies. Other studies (notably Carnagey and Anderson, 2004) have used much better control over the factors that you mention. In the Carnagey study, everyone played the exact same game (Carmaggedon) with one simple twist. In one condition they were rewarded for running people over, in one condition they were punished for running people over and in a third condition they were only told that it was a racing game (and given no information about running people over). Results showed that the people in the reward condition treated it more like a violent game (and ran over a lot more people) as a result they had higher levels of hostile cognition, hostile emotion (but not other emotions) and aggressive behavior. It's a pretty good study. I suggest reading it.

graddy

Just a quick response to your questions to me (sorry didn't see them until now). So you are mistaken about the directionality. It is decreases in self-control that lead to aggressive behavior (not the other way around). That's just a minor mistake though. I might not have been clear in my post.

As for the other question about the safety of participants and the experimenter. THis is not really an issue. As i've said before, JT is blowing these findings way out of proportion. These studies show increases in aggression that would be akin to being more likely to argue (rather than discuss rationally) and on the very very very extreme end, punching someone. Additionally the aggression they show toward someone else, usually isn't toward another person. In the noise blast game they just think it's another person. Also, you usually need some provocation to elicit aggression effects (although some studies have found effects of aggression from media violence without provocation). that being said, when individuals are provoked, someone who had just played a violent video game shows more aggression than someone who played a nonviolent game.

But I do think you are touching on something important here. We do consider ethics in psychological research. So we can't put subjects in harms way. This is why we often have to rely on things like the noise blast game to measure aggression. We can't go to the extreme of giving someone the opportunity to punch someone. So the criticism that people give of our measures are something we can't ethically do anything about. Longitudinal studies have used indices of real world aggression (such as getting into fights at school). But of course these studies are limited in ways that experimental research is not (i.e. you can show causality in experimental, and although you can establish temporal precedence in a longitudinal study it is hard to control for other factors).

In the end, the true concern for psychologists who study this issue, is not how people respond on the noise blast game after 15 minutes of game play. The concern for us lies in the long term effects of repeated exposure. This is why the relationship between violent games and hostile cognition is a much more troubling relationship than the effect on aggression we see in the lab. What hostile cognition is, is the tendency to think in aggressive terms. People who have high accessibility of hostile concepts are more likely to act aggressively (essentially when considering decisions in a situation in whcih aggression is a possible response, having greater accessibility of hostile thoughts will lead to an increased likelihood of opting for that response). These effects don't wear away as quickly as arousal effects might. The more and more hostile concepts are primed (or brought to the forefront of thought) the greater the accessibility of that concept in memeory. So the more you access those thoughts, the stronger they get. This can lead to devastating long term effects.

I just hope that people in the gaming community can understand that the researchers are often much more cautious about their interpretations than the JTs of this world. Our research on this is not out of hatred for video games. Rather it comes from a natural tendency to question human behavior.

Oh and if I sounded somewhat peeved in the posts about random assignment, that is only because I get frustrated that people are never taught what that whole statement about correlation not equaling causation actually means. There is a lot of confusion out there about what we actually do in psychology. And the JT's of this world aren't helping that.

graddy

oh and fear is natural. If anything it's the most important emotion as it helps us to avoid death. Take this example.

Say you are walking through a forest and you see, out of the corner of your eye, what looks like a snake. Let's consider two people, one who can experience fear and one who cannot. THe person who can experience fear freezes in his tracks and moves no further and eventually goes the other way. Now if it wasn't a snake (just a vine) he's made a bit of a fool of himself. But if it was indeed a snake, and that snake is poisonous, he will be more likely to avoid the negative outcomes of walking into a dangerous situation.

Now let's consider the individual without fear. He sees the thing that appears to be a snake. If it isn't a snake, no biggy, he can walk on his merry little way. But if it is a poisonous snake and he doesn't respond to it, he's going to be more likely to be bitten and die.

Which do you think is the more costly mistake? Seeing what appears to be a snake and responding with fear when it isn't actually a snake? Or seeing what appears to be a snake and responding without fear?

Of course this post has no bearing on the meat of this article. Nevertheless, it shows that you are not really considering things objectively. By saying that aggression is more natural than fear is silly. Both have served important functions in the past. There is one major difference though. With fear, you are avoiding death. Aggression can increase the likelihood of death (when you aggress against someone, they are more likely to aggress against you). So the natural nature and effectiveness of aggression is conditional. If you are to be an aggressive person, you ahve to be successful at that aggression. So aggression, in terms of both cultural and evolutionary reasoning, is not exactly the wisesest behavior. Especially now. We live in a cultural society and that has changed things. I doubt any judge would let someone off for being aggresssive with an "i'm evolutionarily predisposed to aggress" plea of innocence.

graddy

As to your comment about the naturality of aggression. Just because it worked for us at one point does not mean it works for us today. Culture changes the way we respond to things because that is what helps us to survive and be successful.

Take this for example. In ancient times (130,000 years ago) it was very important for people to eat sweet and fatty foods whenever you could. This allowed people to store fat so that during the winter they could withstand the cold temperatures. Also, food was not always available back then. There were stretches where people would go without food and had to survive on their fat stores. This lead an evolutionary change to prefer sweet and fatty foods as those who did were more likely to survive.

Today however, sweet and fatty foods are overavailable. But we still have this preference for sweet and fatty foods. As a result we now have the obesity epidemic.

So even though aggression has served purposes in the past (mostly for mate protection and protecting your resources from rivaling factions) the way we use aggression today is not adaptive. And trust me, we already have enough a predisposition to be aggressive. We don't need situational factors like violent media to boost that up.

graddy

Would you please explain how these studies (Anderson and Dill, 2000) do not take into account the myriad of other factors that could influence the result. Have you ever heard of random assignment? Do you know that this randomly distributes other attributes relatively equally across conditions? Even if random assignment fails in one study, replication of the findings in other studies using random assignment procedures can increase the confidence that these other factors are being controlled for (i.e. if one study accidentally results in more aggressive people being in one condition over the other, the next study [based on the laws of probability] will likely redistribute these groups the opposite way).

Try this for your own amusement. Take 100 note cards and write numbers ranging from 1 to 20 on each one. Then take each notecard and flip a coin. If it lands up heads, place that notecard in one pile, if it lands tails, place that notecard in another pile. Once you have gone through all the notecards take them and average the numbers you have written on them. What is the end result? Based on probability the piles should have very similar averages (it won't be exact but it should be close). This is essentially what happens in random assignment to condition. A participant may come in who is at an extreme level (either high or low) of aggression. But as they are randomly assigned to condition, they have an equal likelihood of being in either condition. As the number of subjects increase you will be more likely to have an equal distribution. It's called regression to the mean. So even if one study fails to control for some factor (i.e. the violent game group has more aggressive people than the other condition) the same could be true of the opposite (the nonviolent game group has more aggressive people than the other conditoin). So with replication, which has been doen over and over again, you can be pretty damned sure that your manipulated variable is the only one that is having the effect on your outcome measure.

have you also failed to notice that in many of these experimental studies they do measure trait aggression (which should be the primary variable of interest)? Have you also failed to read the longtudinal studies which measure many other varialbes and even when these are controlled for the relationship still exists?

Do you also not realize that these experimental methods are the same method to assign participants to condition used in things like medical studies?

Also, please tell me of these studies that only look at behaviors from the past. I'd like to see them. I think though that you are confusing case studies (which are done mostly in sociology) with the experimental studies common of psychology (and especially common in terms of research on violent video game effects on behavioral outcomes).

graddy

Not that I think this study proves anything myself (you can look to my earlier posts). But you are making one error that I see a lot on these posts. This was not a correlational study. It was an experimental study. Therefore it is not simple correlation. By manipulating the situation (having one group play one game and another group play another game) which individuals in this study experienced they can establish causality. So the game was causing the differences in brain functioning.

graddy

decyx

Anyway. Its really stupid and I, on a personal level, am disgusted at this woman. Not only for ambulance chasing but for preying on teenage girls insecurities for profit. I took her quiz on her site and the lowest score you could get was porky (Yes I tried to say I was healthy). Vulture.

BLloyd607502

dv8godd

dv8godd

Zodiack

A) Scentologist are the biggest and most vocal critics of Psychology. Since you were trying to attack it in a big way, that is were I came to my conclusion. They make very similar arguments.

B) You missed the entire point of the videos. What I was trying to say is that the fundamentals of science change all the time and that about 200 years and more ago science was in the same infancy that Hard Psych is in now. Hard Psych came way latter due to the fact that we had miss calculated how the brain was structured, with religion and politics were also getting in the way.

Also, the reason why psych is not as well tested as other science is ironically the same flaw that science has: Human nature. Science often provides us with the data, but the meaning of the data and how we use it is widely up to interpretation. For example, scientist studying the effects of atoms splitting figured out that its a much effective way of creating steam thus would be a very good alternative power source to coal. What was the first thing the rest of the humans thought of? Lets put that into a metalic casing and drop that on people we hate so the deadly radiation from such studies can burn them to goop!

To me, psych is as much as a hard science as paleontology. Both study left over evidences as past events and both use tons of guesswork to fill in major gaps. The only difference between fossils and humans is that humans are put under equal rights, therefore you cannot do real testing until you get a test group ready to go though Lab Rat levels of testing AKA Hitler.

Anyhow, I find this whole thing so funny for two huge reasons. First off that people try to solve everything with a solution that works 90-100% fool proof IE video games! When one of the ugly truth, especially when you throw philosophy in the mix is that nothing is even close to 60% functional in this world because everything has massive flaws to it.

Which leads me to my second point. This whole thing is sad because the real reason why kids shoot each other is a 8 billion pound gorilla in the room. Humans by there very nature, have very high aggression levels and seek up most survival. Thus combine this with our level of logic and technology, humans are arguably one of the most aggressive creatures the world has ever seen. We will combat anything from flies to clubbing seals, hunting for sport and not for food and the most dangerous natural predator we have is our selfs. Any person who is even slightly mentally unstable (Hitler, Vlad, Kahn, ect) can turn from any stimuli because that is how aggressive we are. Look at soccer riots in the UK. That is our nature right there.

The only thing we can do about it is that until we can evolve out of that is to use our gift of introspectiveness and our social nature to keep us in check. Ironically though, I also believe that us still being highly aggressive along with homosexuality and increases in disease is an incredibly cruel method of population control via nature.

For more on human behavior, I would like anyone interested to pick up a little book about Evolutionary Psychology. Its written like a comic book and the language is in layman's terms so do not be afraid of reading this: [www.amazon.com]

SidepocketPro

it's hilarious how the audience applauds at the end like they weren't fed ignorance in a jar. just like everything else on television, most reports like this leave out key details that leave you with an ignorant perspective.

thestone

MetaKz

dv8godd

theherlihyboy

Samos42

Sabre_Justice: Okay, no more long name.

You seem to me to be talking about the subject matter of a videogame affecting someone's behavior.

I think Graddy and I are both talking about different styles of gaming (down to a fundamental, game-theory level) stimulate different parts of the brain, regardless of whether the game is violent or not.

I remember the first study I read about on this subject compared the amount of mental stimulation that occurs during videogame play to the amount that occurs when reading a book, for example. The study didn't say, "The videogames were violent, whereas the books were about history, so naturally the kids who read will be less violent." All it said was that the activity of playing videogames stimulates certain parts of the brain less than reading does, and kids who spend more time playing videogames will mature into adults with certain parts of their brains less developed than kids who spent a lot of time reading.
The parts of the brains that were less developed in the gaming kids were the parts that are associated with impulse control.

So it's not really that violence itself is a factor. However, from what I'm reading these days, I'm kind of under the impression that the "violent games" we've played in the past, like Doom, for example, don't stimulate certain parts of the brain as much as, let's say, a puzzle game like Tetris or Minesweeper. It's not because of the violence, really. It's because the player's involvement in most shoot-em-up games is much simpler than in puzzle games.

Now, as far as studies that *do* try to connect violent games to aggressive behavior, I don't know what to believe. My first impulse is to write them off as someone just looking for reason to justify the scapegoating of a new medium. Ho-hum. Been there, done that. People with violent tendencies are probably drawn toward violent media, and they'd still be violent if the violent media weren't there, yada yada. That just seems like common sense to me.

I definitely appreciate what you say about how you can't run a scientific test on this without placing the subjects in danger. Although, you do remind me of a clinical trial of an HIV vaccine, where 'high risk' people signed up to try this drug, and see if it prevented HIV, only to find that in too many cases, it didn't work. That study actually happened... so... I guess some really fucked up things can happen in a study, if it's deemed important enough.

minister.of.rhetoric

MURDERFACE

kalim4c

axiomatic

'Dr.' Susan isn't achieving a thing by flashing around all this 'research'! She's not curing cancer or ending world hunger. All she's doing is provoking the gaming community - a community that has plenty of people who will become or are already more than she and her 'fancy' weight loss guide will ever be.

Chiru

X3R0_9

dv8godd

man in gauze is king ramses II, silly.

Generico

Why do these news shows never bring on the people who actually did the research?

graddy

THe thing that was not focused on in the interview, and is of important relevance, is the decrease in brain functioning in areas of the brain related to self-control. Self-control is an important psychological resource that allows an individual torestrain impulses. Decreases in self-control have been linked to problems with emotion control, decision making, logic problems, decreased prosocial behavior, increased criminal behavior, and increases in aggression.

So what does this study mean for that? Well, really it means almost nothing. First of all the decrease in self-control does not necessarily mean that you will see an increase in aggression. had they tested these individuals on a measure of aggression and looked to see if the changes in brain activity mediated that relationship, it would be a different story. Additionally, brain imaging research, although a favorite of the media, is actually really poorly done. One of my fellow graduate students used to work in a lab that used fMRI and EEG imaging procedures to study human behavior, and according to him, what they usually do is just set different levels of criteria until they find an effect. You're better off looking to results that report actual changes in behavior, rather than changes in brain functioning.

graddy

Ra is on That 70s Show

dv8godd

Dear Dr.

How come I haven't ran out and shot someone who bumped into me on the street? Better yet why haven't I even thought about it? I am a 21 year old male who has been playing video games my whole life. A lot of these have been violent in nature. I was bullied and picked on in school and then went home and played violent video games when I went home. And I don't think the games were anything but therapeutic. I think if you want to look at why kids are shooting up schools maybe you should look at why kids are being bullied.

Or maybe you should go back to telling girls that they need to be skinny in order to be happy. Dr. Bartell I think you are one of the worst kind of people in the world, telling parents that the video games are what make their children act out instead of maybe telling them to sit down and try to play some games with them. Well at least you are getting on TV right?

Violent video games do not kill people

Stupid Doctors who tell lazy parents lies so they can be on TV do.

-Mike Farless

fortheshire

How come I haven't ran out and shot someone who bumped into me on the street? Better yet why haven't I even thought about it? I am a 21 year old male who has been playing video games my whole life. A lot of these have been violent in nature. I was bullied and picked on in school and then went home and played violent video games when I went home. And I don't think the games were anything but therapeutic. I think if you want to look at why kids are shooting up schools maybe you should look at why kids are being bullied.

Or maybe you should go back to telling girls that they need to be skinny in order to be happy. Dr. Bartell I think you are one of the worst kind of people in the world, telling parents that the video games are what make their children act out instead of maybe telling them to sit down and try to play some games with them. Well at least you are getting on TV right?

Violent video games do not kill people

Stupid Doctors who tell lazy parents lies so they can be on TV do.

-My name

fortheshire

Dear Dr.

How come I haven't ran out and shot someone who bumped into me on the street? Better yet why haven't I even thought about it? I am a 21 year old male who has been playing video games my whole life. A lot of these have been violent in nature. I was bullied and picked on in school and then went home and played violent video games when I went home. And I don't think the games were anything but therapeutic. I think if you want to look at why kids are shooting up schools maybe you should look at why kids are being bullied.

Or maybe you should go back to telling girls that they need to be skinny in order to be happy. Dr. Bartell I think you are one of the worst kind of people in the world, telling parents that the video games are what make their children act out instead of maybe telling them to sit down and try to play some games with them. Well at least you are getting on TV right?

Violent video games do not kill people

Stupid Doctors who tell lazy parents lies so they can be on TV do.

-My name

fortheshire

topaz420

What worries me more is the argument that in a developing mind, stimulating one part of it more than the other will lead to this part being more developed later in life or that part being less developed. This is more akin to biological science, and has a lot more credibility.

But, like I said earlier, as videogames (specifically violent ones) become more complicated, it's possible they'll stimulate our brains in different places than they used to. In the past, violent videogames were all about running and gunning, but in the past ten years, they've become increasingly strategic, relying on a completely different skillset, and quite possibly, a different region of the brain.

minister.of.rhetoric

dv8godd

dv8godd

Oh and don't forget this one: This is about those stickers: [www.youtube.com]

What I am basically saying is that NOTHING in science (and arguably in Human existence) is 2 + 2 =5. Its all relative and we are also learning constantly so science is constantly updated.

For instance in the hard science of physics. We use to go under Newtons Law of Gravity. We were apparently wrong...now we go under Einstein's Law of Gravity and Relativity. Even in a hard science, MAJOR things radically change all the time.

Hence 1984's statement, 2 + 2 = 5

SidepocketPro

At first you sounded like a Scientologist, but now I just see you are confused. Here: [www.youtube.com]

BRB, I am going to state my reasons on the whole Violent Videogame thing but first I need to take a god damn nap.

SidepocketPro

Señor Vorpal Kickass'o

As we're discovering with "hard" sciences like physics and astronomy, sometimes you get surprise variables there, too. We've thrown out a lot of "given" facts a few times now.

Anyhow, most studies show that there is indeed a link between violent games and increased aggression... but very small and of limited duration. So I wouldn't trust someone who said there was no link, either.

beeporama (brian.j.parker)

Zodiack

I live nearby there, and I heard on the news that he was in his 20s, so it will be Halo's fault as well.

when I played tony hawk a lot, I would be walking through the city and see places that I could grind and do tricks, so I can see how one could meld their video game experiences with their real life experiences. however, it was never more than a passing thought to skate in these areas. I would hope in the same way, if soemone had been playing a lot of some fps they might for a minute visualize their real world as their game world, because it would be a habit for their mind. however, for a healthy person I don't think it would go beyond that. For someone to fail to recognize the difference between the game world and the real world would indicate another more serious brain dysfunction.

dArk_stAr

dv8godd

Now, here's what's interesting to me. You say Tetris fires up the prefrontal cortex. Based on what Brain Age keeps telling me, visualizing things stimulates the prefrontal cortex. In Tetris, you're always visualizing where the next piece will go. In Brain Age, you're trying to visualize words, or mathematical equations, etc.

In Gears of War, you're always trying to visualize the next hiding place to dive behind. In a way, one could argue that Gears of War stimulates the brain more similar to the way Tetris does than than the way a game like the original Quake does. And yet, most of the "violent videogame research" is on these older shooters.

Is it possible that as shooters become more sophisticated, bearing fewer resemblances to arcade-style run-n-gun style games of yesteryear, that we'll start to see a dramatic shift in ways violent videogames stimulate different parts of the brain? Is it possible that suddenly shooters will start stimulating "that part of the brain that allegedly makes us good people?"

Again, I don't know. But I'm really interested in hearing from someone who does. It's such a shame that just won't happen on TV.

minister.of.rhetoric

It's like a show from Conservative America broadcast into our New Yorker living room.

They'll bring on any moron that claims to be an expert on anything.

Electroqueen

And not all children like those kinds of games. Sure, it's a forbidden fruit for many and taking it away will just spur more interest, BUT I'm sure kids and teens can enjoy games based on their favorite cartoon or something even LESS violent.

I know anecdotal evidence is crap in the long-run, but personally, though I'm 21, I enjoy games like Picross DS and Pokémon. When I was younger, I liked RPGs and puzzle games like Puyo Pop. I know I can't be alone in that respect. When I got older, I started enjoying more mature games... The occasional MGS or FFTactics which had storylines involving murder, heresy, betrayal, and GUNS.

Okay, so maybe most people aren't like me.

Anyway, I'm glad someone picked up on the fact that our "credible expert" is nothing of the sort. If only they would bring those facts to life on air, we could avoid embarrassing situations like this.

On a different note, I'm getting tired of people wanting to link EVERY SHOOTING EVER to video games, even when they're clearly not related.

Konatsu

EmeraldDragon

sandwiches

susurrate

@Granthunter: Your absolutely correct and sorry if I came across as attacking you. (I guess I shouldn't get so sensational myself and read your whole post. heheh.) But one thing I see on the internets is people responding to these people not with well thought out retorts, but simple insults. Hopefully that isn't the sign of social degradation they so vehemently struggle to disprove.

@Fnor: Your right. But you see, a lot of what psychology is boils down to statistics. The information that we gather is usually done through surveys and experiments. Because it is impossible to do a case study on a large group of people, a lot of what you see in psychology is generalized information from a large group of people. This is where some danger occurs and you get people over-generalizing like this woman does here. Heck, you could say that as ice cream sales go up, so do murders. They correlate, but you'd be silly to think one caused the other.

man, all this talk about psychology reminds me that I should stop skipping that lecture to do stuff like read Kotaku and play video games. Kinda funny, no?

Amuro1X

Chilly Hollow

"Susan Bartel- Prior to joining the faculty at Central Methodist, Susan was a marketing consultant for a regional consulting firm, ran her own successful marketing firm, and served nearly 25 years in administrative positions. Susan has twenty years teaching as an adjunct instructor at several institutions teaching a variety of marketing and public relations courses. Susan received a bachelor's degree in education and business and a master's degree in counseling psychology from the University of Missouri-Columbia."

Super_Nintendo_Chalmers

exolstice

DaiMacculate

daschupa

Zeruel

n2Depth

DELETED

until then, please fuck off, all of you cunts make me really angry. why, i'd like to shoot you all (hee hee).

Tommy

Which makes it ironic, to me, that every exercise I have seen in Brain Age are designed to make you work your prefrontal cortex.

Anyway, I'm not pretending to be an authority of any kind here, and I invite someone with more knowledge to speak up, but I do think Granthunter is sort of onto something, in the sense that, in young people, brain activity can potentially mean that part of the brain gets more developed than it would in kids who don't have the same kind of brain activity.

I fear that we tend to argue on what seems to be obvious common sense to us: if you're not stupid, you won't be inspired by violent videogames to kill people. It's that simple, right?
Well, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe there is something to this whole brain development thing. I don't know, but I sure would like to.

minister.of.rhetoric

In French dollar signs goes after, I'll never get use to put it infront. :s

Arthois

sadkermit - soon to be banned for standing up to the ummm nazi.

Grosolank

Good point, but you never know when some one is going to reference something said in jest. Then some narrow minded drooling idiot fails to see how their arguments refute themselves. I will shut my mouth permanently now, pleasant day all.

Granthunter

NLK4711

Sorry to have sounded like I supported their reference, I do not. I was simply trying to state that arguments like "Games don't make me want to kill people, stupid bitches like this do" do little to make a well thought out counterpoint. Your reply to my comment does, I feel validated and will give myself a cookie. I do hope that more people will look at the connection between this and the politics of fear mongering through sensationalizing youth crime. My major point was that by blaming the game the kid played for their behavior and not other factors like where they were from, their home environment, parents,how they were treated at school these social issues go unnoticed. In this way they are using games as a means of selling all youth as violent and dangerous. The result is that the agendas of those who control the message can get pushed through that allow censorship while the true root of the problem does not get attacked. Why do they not want the root attacked? Because attacking the root might mean trying to balance out inequalities in society or relinquishing control over media and that would seriously cramp their style.

Granthunter

THE-HATER

Fnor

maroille

zany_ninja

Poverty? What poverty?

Seriously, though. I don't think we, as a gamer community, need too be to worried about credibility when attacking such folderol as this; her arguments essentially refute themselves.

kmattson

Now, while all that is good, she's relying on information that she did not gather. In fact, the people that conducted the study were not satisfied with what they found. Game Politics had it right when they said that this was "pop psychology at its worst."

Amuro1X

Hay, we got rid of all those nasty cigarettes and alcohol and...oh wait.

Oh, and I dunno if you live in America or not but when listing USD the dollar sign comes before the value. :)

SidepocketPro

J_Sensei

What are we going to do? Kill a multi-billion dollar industry? I don't think sooooooo.

I guess, all they really do is piss off us & make some kid steal the 50$ out of his mothers purse to buy the game she won't buy him.

Arthois

I just played Scarface were I am chopping up some good for nothing gang to bits. I loved that part. Then I went to have breakfast and fixed stuff in the house. Funny enough, I was not angry, just amused like a cartoon.

But now I read this Dr. Susan Bartel and I wanna punch a baby. Now thats violent.

Not as violent I get when I hear anything out of Bill O'Rileys mouth but hay! XD

SidepocketPro

Isn't Halo rated Mature? It isn't designed for kids.

Quasimodo X

How much do you want to bet they won't bring up videogames, just because it will probably involve a crazy old man and not a teenager?

minister.of.rhetoric

Granthunter

nintend0nick

XGamerX

kmattson

ThaiGrocer

MasterOfPastures

"SENTRY GOING UP!"

Throtex