Metanet Forums

Well as we all know there are people who think you can get agressive of videogames. Those people think that you will do the same as in (for example) GTA.


I truely disagree.
First they thought Comics made you agressive. then The Tv would make you violent. Then violent Films. Now VideoGames. I think people should know that IT'S JUST A GAME. I know you can get frustrated or something but not violend. What I do agree with is that young kids shouldn't play any sort of agressive games.

Comment

Ahem edit: about comics who would make you violent:
Many years ago when comics started to get populair some got attacked by people who thought they would make people violent. that was a very short period though


(sorry for my english)

If you have a predisposition for anger, absolutely - Video Games can certainly be a trigger.

maybe people who are sensitive for it might get violend. but then again they shouldn't play games then.

and if you have a predisposition for anger, there's a lot that can be a trigger.

i think that the positives of video games far outweigh the negatives; i prefer video games to books. video games are much more immersive, give the user much more creativity, and have the potential to have far more deep storylines and plots. video games are to books as quantum physics is to Newtonian physics.

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

If a certain person plays certain video games at a certain time, then yes, it will probably make that person more violent. However, it won't have that effect on most people.

On the other hand, playing violent enough video games for long enough will leave most anyone desensitized to violence, which is a terrible thing.

I think violent people buy violent games. However, I think some violent games are also genuinely fun, and non-violent people will buy them.

Also, I think it's important that parents don't raise violent kids. Maybe parents should make sure their children are mature enough to handle violent and fun games before buying them. It's important that parents monitor their kids' intake of certain media.

It's also important that the government stay out of regulating media. You ultimately can't control what other people say, write, and create; you can only control what you hear, read, and purchase.

blue_tetris wrote:I think violent people buy violent games. However, I think some violent games are also genuinely fun, and non-violent people will buy them.

Also, I think it's important that parents don't raise violent kids. Maybe parents should make sure their children are mature enough to handle violent and fun games before buying them. It's important that parents monitor their kids' intake of certain media.

It's also important that the government stay out of regulating media. You ultimately can't control what other people say, write, and create; you can only control what you hear, read, and purchase.

I agree

ive played cod and war based games all my lie and im a really nice person....as long as people dont hit a nerve

rambo5252 wrote:ive played cod and war based games all my lie and im a really nice person....as long as people dont hit a nerve

same, I've played since I was quite young war games, and I am quite nice xd

On a slightly off-topic note, investigators are dumb.

If someone does a violent crime, and they have a GTA game, the police will blame GTA. And they always say that the perpetrator was "intimidating a crime the main character does in the game."

On the more on-topic note, I believe that violent games are fine for children who can handle them.

I think violent people buy violent games. However, I think some violent games are also genuinely fun, and non-violent people will buy them.

aherm. well, i've played violent games all my life. i have not even gotten angry, let alone violent, in (probably) years.

I have an obligation not to kill anyone because, if I do, the media will make a fuss over all the violent video games I've played.

Also, I wouldn't compare books and video games because they're too different from each other. Now, that's not totally true. I would say that most video games are better than most choose-your-own-adventure books.

Ironically, it doesn't really matter to me if the game is particularly violent (although most games are). It's whether it's hard or just frustrating; some games will just totally piss me off.

gloomp wrote:On the other hand, playing violent enough video games for long enough will leave most anyone desensitized to violence, which is a terrible thing.

That's the issue.

yungerkid wrote:video games are much more immersive, give the user much more creativity, and have the potential to have far more deep storylines and plots. video games are to books as quantum physics is to Newtonian physics.

Eternal Boredom wrote:okay... that is absolute bullshit.

No. No. No, no, no, no, no, no, NO! Books are -always- going to be (one of) the best form(s) of entertainment. You cannot make a video game with a deeper plot than an equivalent book. And they give the user more creativity? If you're reading a book, dude, with your imagination the sky's the limit.
Read Inheritance or Harry Potter and get more immersed in a video game than those.


...I haven't been playing violent video games...of course not...

Books generally suck. Video games are cool.

rennaT wrote:I have an obligation not to kill anyone because, if I do, the media will make a fuss over all the violent video games I've played.

Also, I wouldn't compare books and video games because they're too different from each other. Now, that's not totally true. I would say that most video games are better than most choose-your-own-adventure books.

who oh oh oh. I have a dutch source about that one. some comic were attacked because they would be to violent.

yungerkid wrote:and have the potential to have far more deep storylines and plots.

A story is a story, they all start out as words on paper. One medium holds no more inherent potential for depth of tale than another.

And I'm with the notion that violent people can be triggered by violent things, but seeing as society has been playing violent games for decades now and so far only a very tiny percentage of people have cited them as influence for violent acts, I'm pretty sure they're safe enough.

Perhaps as video games become more realistic they can be used as a type of therapy, a catharsis for certain behaviours/desires? Of course, then there's the aspect that a hyper-realistic virtual violence could breed a want to cause actual harm to actual people, but I'm sure we'll end up applying something like this at some point.

I personally think that it is not really necessary to get violent from a video game.
But I do think, that since the majority of gamers are teens, and puberty goes hand in hand, then when someone has a mood swing or is angry at something, they decide to take it out on a videogame, thinking it'd help them, but they absent mindedly get inspired/motivated to do something stupid.

i disagree with you, atob. whereas books are limited to what you can envision in your own mind based on simple words on a page, video games present all the creativities of hundred of people, with sound and detailed video. 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. video games provide more creativity because the user is constantly being presented with new things and being made to respond in different ways to its environment. with books, on the other hand, the user simply imagines the scenery and the characters; the physical side of things. it's like looking at a picture vs a description of a picture (books vs video games respectively); the actual picture itself has much more detail than the mere wording.

a book is mere words, whereas a video game is words, sounds, gestures, the environment, and the user's response. in a book, the user imagines everything at once, providing a large creativity boost, and everything (plot, characters, etc.) is given to the user from there. but in a video game, the user is constantly presented with new material, providing a smaller creativity boost, but over a larger period of time. that's what i wanted to say. not sure if i was clear enough.

The more somebody is immersed in violent, angry, and tense situations (such as violent games), the more the general concepts and moods will linger in their mind.

yungerkid wrote:i disagree with you, atob. whereas books are limited to what you can envision in your own mind based on simple words on a page, video games present all the creativities of hundred of people, with sound and detailed video.

My imagination is more detailed than your HD screen. And it has better sound, too.

yungerkid wrote:but in a video game, the user is constantly presented with new material

Explain.

yungerkid wrote:a book is mere words, whereas a video game is words, sounds, gestures, the environment, and the user's response.

I'm pretty sure words, sounds, gestures, environments, responses & more go on in my head while I read.

yungerkid wrote:in a book, the user imagines everything at once, providing a large creativity boost, and everything (plot, characters, etc.) is given to the user from there. but in a video game, the user is constantly presented with new material, providing a smaller creativity boost, but over a larger period of time.

I don't think I can imagine everything at once, cause as soon as the page is flipped, something new comes along. Maybe like 100 page books might do that, but the material I read range from 200-600 pages, providing large creativity boosts over a large period of time.

Just my thoughts.

a book and video game would have the same effect....

a book GTA that had the same content in the game GTA would be just as bad...

also i think neither the book or the video game is better at stirring the amagination because a book is limited to words and a game is limited to what the gamers want you to do....but a picture is worth a thousand words but words can be very broad to stir the amagination to create a picture that would be worth a thousand words......OMFG all goes back to a book VS a video game is a tie

ahh flip, this is why i don't like tower debates. the refutations are monsters in mah closet. ahh, i'll do it later.

@incluye: the user of a video game is constantly presented with new material. you know, as a video game progresses, there are different maps (most notably), different characters, different weapons, all that stuff. new things are constantly being introduced. or at least they are in the games i'm considering.

@tribulation: books move at a much slower rate, and can't cover as much detail as video games can. thus, video games (at least have the potential to) move much faster than books. and i'm sure, tribulation, that a new and unexpected plot twist that is found in letters only does not produce as much creativity as an audio and visual introduction of a new character with a completely fresh personality that requires an immediate response.

in case you couldn't tell, most of my arguments are based on the fact that video games communicate much more data to the user much faster.

I was asking myself this question just this afternoon but then as I targeted my enemies head and then blew it into at least 20 pieces I said to myself, "Holy shit that was awesome."

So my quick answer to this question is: Keep em coming, to stop them for those with a predisposition to violence is silly when precautions should simply be taken in those cases. It's just another form of censorship, even if you are using the excuse as a noble one.