Violent VideoGames

[a happy song]

But I do have a hard time believing you view words as superior to all other media for conveying any type of message.

When I read a great book I experience just as many textures as I do when I watch a movie or play a game.

My entire argument has been that not one media is superior to another. Younger kid was implying that video games and films have more potential for depth in general and I've been pointing out that the same amount of depth can exist in a purely worded format.

The "examples" argument has always been a weird low blow in any form of debate.

Let's take a look at your original quote:

not every type of narrative voice or mood can be instilled properly in words alone

I was never suggesting that certain medias weren't more efficient in certain contexts, but I do fully believe that there doesn't exist an emotion or story type that can't be experessed in words alone.

I'm actually curious, I could learn something here. I'm not attempting to debunk your point.

My original request stands.

If you can explain why other media exist without being "the best" at doing something, atob, I'll believe you.

This was never my argument. My argument was that efficiency in certain contexts does not imply greater depth in general, that all medias can be equally as expressive in story and development.

Of course some are more efficient than others in certain context, I've not argued against that.

[smartalco]

The Dark Knight scene I was talking about.
I'm not saying you can't describe that scene in words, someone had to do just that to make the screenplay, I'm saying that you couldn't describe the whole scene to have as much of an impact.
The Joker's initial laugh, the way he speaks, some of his movements, his little lip thing he does occasionally; you could try to describe these in words, but to accurately describe the whole scene would take several pages of 8pt font, which would take so long to read that the impact of the immediacy of the Joker's intro in the movie would be long lost in word form.
Given atob and b_t's argument, I'm slightly retracting my previous statement, and agreeing with b_t. There are situations where each form can be greatly superior to the others.

[blue_tetris]

I really don't know where you're going with this, if it wasn't to say that books are better than other media. I thought that's why you derailed this topic in that direction. Now, I don't know why you derailed it at all. No one said books weren't a good medium. yungerkid was saying just what I am: That other media are worthwhile and he enjoys them more than books.

What are you getting at, atob?

Most of my points still stand. Brevity and delivery are aspects of narrative and books aren't as good at this as movies are. So, many aspects of narrative that movies (and even music) can provide cannot be provided by the written medium. However, nearly every aspect of writing can also be presented within film.



But, if you demand example, I'd say that the narrative voice of clarity-despite-brevity or palpable silence cannot be evoked with a book. When I read text explaining that a mood "is palpably silent", no matter how at length it is, I process it quickly. And the silence is scarcely palpable. I don't feel the mood, I am told what the mood is. And the first rule in any creative fiction is to show and not tell. That's the mood that books are good at. Books are good when they try to emulate the experiences of the senses as adequately as possible, despite the inadequacy of the medium in actually creating real sensory input.

But, yeah, the more I think about it, the more it seems like time is the X factor for writing. With a movie, something is there and it's gone, on the most conceptual of levels. You have to pay attention to detail. You can't re-read it. You are actively and fervently trying to participate in your senses and this demand for mental alacrity forces a different experience and, ultimately, a different narrative for each watcher. Not a narrative that relies upon interpretation, consideration, and introversion of the senses (as per in a book); but a narrative that relies upon perception, cognitive quickness, and extraversion of the senses.

The fact that it's a different experience provides a different narrative. It's that simple. So, books can't do every type of narrative or voice--that was your original point. Unless you want to change it now and "Suki" along to argument 3. I've churned through this argumentative millery before and I can do it again. (No offense, new Suki.)



...uhh, anyway, the point is: Violent video games shouldn't be regulated by the government because parenting and personal freedoms can regulate what media you receive without limiting creatives.

[rambo5252]

OMG atob is fucking genious.....hes like the onley one that realizez in movies/games/etc....the creater has you see what he wants you to see and a book lets you see what you want to see...like the pencil trick is shown but if written it can go down how ever you want it to...

[a happy song]

yungerkid was saying just what I am: That other media are worthwhile and he enjoys them more than books.

That was part of his point, sure, but he also implied:

video games are much more immersive, give the user much more creativity, and have the potential to have far more deep storylines and plots.

there are many ways to make the plot more deep; with more sensory input going to the user, there are ways of developing characters that simply aren't available with books.

movies also have more potential than books to have deeper plots, more character development, and better atmospheres.

All the bold parts being completely untrue. The underlined parts especially so.

What are you getting at, atob?

I've already exaplined myself fully, but I'll reiterate if I need to:

Yungerkid has been implying that Video games and movies have more potential for depth of character development and plot lines, which is simply not true.

He is saying that they can fit more story and character development into less time so there is more potential for depth, which is simply not true.

I believe that books allow more freedom than games and movies in terms of setting the scene with your imagination, that's the only aspect that I've championed as being greater.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

Overall, arguing about which artistic medium is 'better' is pointless and juvenile. We might as well debate whether music or painting is a stronger artform.

That's what I've been wanting to say.

[yungerkid]

i was arguing that video games have the potential to have deeper storylines, characters, you know. hey, if y'all want to drop it, i'm fine with that. the arguments were getting rather circular anyway.

oh and by the way, my username is yungerkid; the misspelling is intentional.

[a happy song]

I was arguing that video games have the potential to have deeper storylines, characters, you know.

Exactly, like I said.

I'm happy to leave this now too unless b_t feels like replying.

[smartalco]

He is saying that they can fit more story and character development into less time so there is more potential for depth, which is simply not true.

Maybe less time for a movie, but video games have no time limit, in fact, most games take longer to play through entirely then it takes to read your average 36 (random number) chapter book (at least, if they don't, you are either a very slow reader or you bought a horribly short video game).

[jean-luc]

Really, I think that a comparison of video games, films, and books are a proverbial comparison of apples and oranges.

The mediums are very different. they allow writers and producers to express the same things, but in different ways, and some mediums allow for presenting concepts that others don't allow for. For example, it's easier to a sense of rushed action in a film or video game than in a book (it's not impossible to express this in a book of course, but definitely more difficult to get the 'adrenaline rush' in viewers that a film or video game can create), but it's easier to express a sense of beauty in a book (once again, not impossible in film or video games; you could attempt to model the scene via CGI or matte painting or whatever, but it'd take much more time and people than it would for a writer to express the same thing in text).

Notice that when books get turned in to movies, the movie is almost always worse. And when movies get turned in to books, the books are almost always worse. This is doubly true for video games.

The mediums are simply different. It takes a different kind of artist for each (writers and producers may span multiple media in the same way that a painter may also sculpt, but generally they are separate disciplines). They all allow for the expression of the same things, but in different ways, and certain media definitely handle certain things better than others. Movies are not going to replace books, and books aren't going to push movies out. Although video games are just starting to be accepted as a mainstream artistic medium, they too will coexist with books and films, in the same way that (to use a previous example) sculpting and painting coexist.

[bobaganuesh_2]

okay... that is absolute bullshit. Video games don't cause a person to suddenly become violent, it is the person him/herself. The idiots who think that by playing video games I will become a mass murderer are crackpots who need to stfu.

Now personally i don't like games like grand theft auto because it seems pointless, but i don't think it causes people to be violent.

btw you spelled violent wrong

k no1 gives a goddam CRAP if he spelled it wrong.

anypoos, I think Kablizzy said it best. For example, I have a mild Irish temper. Playing N drove me to the yelling, screaming, crying, even almost soiling myself cuz N can be a frustrating game, no? It can be considered violent, depending on you definition of 'violent', with the blood explosions and mad seeker drones trying to electrocute you. But games like GTA, can influence a person depending on how they, ah, deal with videogames. My parents won't let me play GTA cuz I got a younger sibling, and it/the younger sibling is certainly impressionable; but I have played GTA at a friends house on a few occasions, and it doesn't look to exciting, and since the storyline is considered to be fictitious I don't attempt to imitate/empathize the actions/implicactions of the game.

[Qwubble]

A violent video game only effects you, if you are not smart enough to know that it's just a game and life isn't like that.

For example, GTF should only be an issue, if you have no idea that...
1) it's REAL people, REAL money, REAL cars out here, and your actions have REAL consequences.
2)It's not all fun and games in the real world when you steal a car and you have the military out to take your life to protect others.
(and so on)


It's really the parents faults/ or the dumb person's fault if violent video games are an issue.
If you don't have enough self discipline/parenting, then no, you shouldn't own a violent video game. Violent video games are rated M for mature, mature people who know that life isn't like that game.

[Tanner]

A violent video game only effects you, if you are not smart enough...

I guess we should probably all watch out for you, then. Joking, joking, don't go all Manhunt 2 on my ass!

In all seriousness, though, I strongly disagree with you. If I were to sit and play GTA and listen to Lil Jon for twelve hours and then go out and drink a few beers with my friends, I'm not saying I would definitely pull off and slug someone but I would be in a completely different frame of mind then if I'd played Katamari Damacy and listened to Sigur Ros. And the effect is cumulative so if I do this for three hours every day for 12 years, I'm going to be a different person from if I hadn't. Again, doesn't mean I go out and pop a few caps but it hardly helps.

[Qwubble]

A violent video game only effects you, if you are not smart enough...

I guess we should probably all watch out for you, then. Joking, joking, don't go all Manhunt 2 on my ass!

In all seriousness, though, I strongly disagree with you. If I were to sit and play GTA and listen to Lil Jon for twelve hours and then go out and drink a few beers with my friends, I'm not saying I would definitely pull off and slug someone but I would be in a completely different frame of mind then if I'd played Katamari Damacy and listened to Sigur Ros. And the effect is cumulative so if I do this for three hours every day for 12 years, I'm going to be a different person from if I hadn't. Again, doesn't mean I go out and pop a few caps but it hardly helps.

1) Drinking adds a whole different thing into the whole violent video games debate. If you started drinking, and a friend said "killing people is fun", you then lack the common sense to say no it's bad (in some occasions, it depends on how much you drink).

2) It's still all about common sense. Even if you play GTF or any violent game for that matter for a long period of time, you should know that life isn't like that. It's all about understanding that in life, killing someone isn't funny.

again. M is MATURE!!!!!!!

So I strongly disagree with you disagreeing with me :P

[Tanner]

This isn't about separating fantasy from reality. I think you underestimate the power of classical conditioning. If a ringing bell once a day can make a dog salivate, imagine what hours of violent videogames can do.

I'll throw a few studies out here because I like to.

In a factorial design, impulsive and reflective children played video games with aggressive or nonaggressive themes. Interpersonal aggression and aggression toward inanimate objects were assessed in a free-play setting and interpersonal aggression was assessed during a frustrating situation. Results indicated that subjects who played the video game with aggressive content exhibited significantly more object aggression during free-play and more interpersonal aggression during the frustrating situation than youngsters who played nonaggressive video games. Aggressive behavior was unaffected by cognitive tempo.

The effects of exposure to violent video games on automatic associations with the self were investigated in a sample of 121 students. Playing the violent video game Doom led participants to associate themselves with aggressive traits and actions on the Implicit Association Test. In addition, self-reported prior exposure to violent video games predicted automatic aggressive self-concept, above and beyond self-reported aggression. Results suggest that playing violent video games can lead to the automatic learning of aggressive self-views.

That said, I do not think that violent video games should be in any way controlled by the government. The ideal system would be one of moderation and good parenting.

[Kablamo]

well

its the way people are educated i think. if you are told that violence is not a good thing and that bad video games should not be imitated then playing one will not effect you because you know that it is wrong.

however people do become aggresive we they are not educated what is wrong and what is right, so if they play violent video games and are not told that it is bad, they will think it will be normal

so in conclusion i would say yes, if not properly educated

[Zephyr]

I let out my anger ON violent video games.
I'm not about to go beat up some innocent person in real life, so i do it on a screen, and it make me happy to see him get decapitated.

Which relaxes me and makes me happy =)

[SlappyMcGee]

and it make me happy to see him get decapitated.

Which relaxes me and makes me happy =)

This says far more about you than it does about violent video games.

If you actively want to be violent, and you're using video games as a release for that violence, than I don't necessarily agree that you need Left 4 Dead. In fact, Left 4 hours at a child psychologist might benefit you more.

But, being a man of proposed smaller government, and being that its ludicrous to say that somebody -can't- make something, I'd leave it for your parents to decide.

Oh, and about this "more depth" honky shit: I strongly believe anybody who thinks that hasn't read a good book. Ultimately, everything in a video game was drawn for you, and everything you do is fairly linear as far as characterization (despite claims that shooting a rocket launcher in GTAIV totally makes you "deep".), and one of the best techniques in writing is to make your brain make connections the author didn't even intend.

[smartalco]

and one of the best techniques in writing is to make your brain make connections the author didn't even intend.

which is also the bane of my english classes
[/offtopic]

although I won't say that I enjoy seeing someone decapitated like z3phyr, I do equate it to the 'punch a pillow when you are mad thing', its just that instead of punching pillows, I'm getting ridiculous amounts of headshots in TF2 :D

[Tunco]

Violent VideoGames


ROCKS!

[Twistkill]

Violent VideoGames


ROCKS!

It's nice that you're expressing your opinion about video games, but this is the debate section, and this topic is specifically dealing with the alleged link between violent video games and violence in the real world. Unless you have input that is relevant to this particular subject, please refrain from posting here.

[jean-luc]

Oh, and about this "more depth" honky shit: I strongly believe anybody who thinks that hasn't read a good book. Ultimately, everything in a video game was drawn for you, and everything you do is fairly linear as far as characterization (despite claims that shooting a rocket launcher in GTAIV totally makes you "deep".), and one of the best techniques in writing is to make your brain make connections the author didn't even intend.

I think that it's a pointless exercise to compare forms. Video games do not necessarily draw everything out for you, that depends on the genre. Video games offer an opportunity for player intervention and response that books do not. Books, on the other hand, are capable of introspective that is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve well in video games.