Interesting findings on video games

[Jason Rees]

The discussion is sort of ironic since it takes place on a board where we were all trained to be lethal killing machines probably starting in childhood, and continue to train other people's kids to smash brain stems, gouge eyes and break various bones.

Ugh, I don't know about your classes, but the ones I and my children have attended instilled a discipline and sense of your fellow man, NOT to do that kind of stuff unless absolutely necessary.

In a video game, it's often the ONLY option, and no incentive not to, and certainly no consequences.

[TSDguy]

Make all the comments you need to, all I'm saying is that it's very ironic.

[MikeK]

Very ironic given all the use of the emoticon when describing certain techniques.

[Valkenar]

This thread is about violent video games and children. That's a whole other domain. Conditioning minds with interactive games that simulate killing in a graphically realistic way is one thing for adults with mature judgment centers. It's an entirely different proposition for children whose brains are still developing.

Where's the data, Bill? What rated "m" games have you destroyed that contain graphically realistic killing?

Violent video games for children may well be a different domain from violent video games for adults, but where are the studies that show video games increase violence? There is a lot of media hysteria and a lot of people with that gut feeling that video games are bad, but where's the evidence? "The literature" contains a large number of studies that are politically motivated and poorly controlled (not even for obvious variables like family violence).

A great deal of the hype about video games is based on gross misunderstandings like Jason's ("Shoot them in the head? Why not? You get more points that way. "). There are people who think martial arts are about training kids to be violent, but anyone who is really familiar with karate realizes how unlikely and rare that is. To me this just has the markings of a generational conflict. It's this century's jazz music. It's something that is disturbingly unfamiliar and thus presumptively likely to corrupt the children. So people who don't understand it jump to conclusions based on gut feelings.

[Bill Glasheen]

Justin

I quote you a review article from the peer-reviewed literature. Then you dismiss the subject with "Where's the data," "media hysteria," "gut feeling," and "generational conflict." I believe a review article from the peer-reviewed literature trumps unsubstantiated opinions - no matter how many times you repeat them. You're going to need to do better than that.

The "M" games I have destroyed are the usual suspects, Justin. There's a reason for that "M" label, don't you think?

- Bill

[Valkenar]

Justin
I quote you a review article from the peer-reviewed literature. Then you dismiss the subject with "Where's the data," "media hysteria," "gut feeling," and "generational conflict." I believe a review article from the peer-reviewed literature trumps unsubstantiated opinions - no matter how many times you repeat them.

This article doesn't particularly refute my claims that there is a lack of good studies on the subject. Here's an example of what I mean:

At the
time of this writing, there have been 6 experimental ... 2 correlational ... and 2 longitudinal studies ... of video games and aggression-related affect conducted with children and adolescents (Table I). None of these studies meets all of the criteria for high quality studies described above.

Emphasis mine. In fact, throughout that review repeatedly admits that the studies are flawed in numerous ways. The study still concludes that there is a correlation, and they suggest this is sufficient grounds for claiming games as a risk factor. The strongest link they are ultimately able to make is that "there is a preponderance of evidence that violent video game play is related to aggressive affect, physiological arousal, aggressive cognitions, and aggressive behaviors." Well duh, of course there's a relation. Wanna bet there's a relation between martial arts and "aggressive affect, physiological arousal, aggressive cognitions, and aggressive behaviors."?

The "M" games I have destroyed are the usual suspects, Justin.

Well what in the heck are the usual suspects? Grand Theft Auto? Manhunt?

There's a reason for that "M" label, don't you think?

I think the reason is very flimsy. Video game ratings aren't meaningless, but they're far, far from reliable.

Here are some "M" games:

Diablo II - This game is about killing demons in a 2d, top-down cartoony world. It's clearly a fantasy game, with much, much less realistic battles than say, Lord of the Rings (PG13). Here's a screenshot:
http://www.portablegaming.de/attachment ... hot006.jpg

Jade Empire - This is a game about being a martial arts master. It features goofy and unrealistic hand to hand combat.
http://static4.filefront.com/images/caajiniehs.jpg

Beliefe & Betrayal - This is a puzzle game with no combat. The graphics aren't realistic , you just go around clicking items and solving puzzles.
http://gallery.techarena.in/data/503/me ... shot_7.jpg

Here are some "T" for teens games:
Quantom of Solace - Based on the ("r" rated) bond movie. You play James Bond.

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/ima ... 720965.jpg

Bully - It's a game where you play a bully at school, you go around beating up kids and generally being a delinquent.
http://www.game-focus.com/images/screen ... 770078.jpg

Call of Duty 4 - This is a first-person shooter where you play a soldier and go around shooting realistic-looking humans.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/20 ... een001.jpg

On average the "violent-realismness" of "M" games may be larger than that of "T" games, but for an individual game the rating is largely arbitrary and a terrible predictor of the content. Just like for movies.

[TSDguy]

It reminds me of the fear in the 70s and 80s that playing Dungeons and Dragons would make you antisocial, psychotic, or worship satan. On the surface without knowing anything about D+D you might think "ok, all these people have a point." Then you learn ANYthing about the game and realize how absolutely ridiculous the idea is.

McCain used to have similar problems with martial arts, as did/do quite a few other politicians.

I think Justin was close with the generational thing, but only because the last generations didn't play video games, not so much their age. In my opinion it's not even worth debating. Last generation will die off and the following generations will play video games, D+D and MMA in peace. Something like 95% of kids today play video games regularly so there will be no one left to whine.

[Glenn]

Something like 95% of kids today play video games regularly so there will be no one left to whine.

When these kids become parents they will complain about the games their kids are playing. It's kinda like music, violence in movies, etc., what was common when you were a kid never seems as bad as what your kids are exposed to.

[TSDguy]

Good point. I suspect the complaints will be at least slightly muted by exposure though. It's pretty common for young parents to game with their children today.

[Bill Glasheen]

FWIW, the two games I've repeatedly nuked - because they were being played by preteen boys - were Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. In case you are wondering.

I don't shelter my boys. I've taken them quite young to "PG" or "R" rated movies if the material wasn't gratuitously violent. I took the 10-year-old to see 300 because it was about a most significant event in history - however charmingly exaggerated (like most Greek Mythology). I also brought him to see H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds after 1st grade, and it prompted him to buy the book and read it with me. Now that's what I'm talking about.

Pokemon battles? Sure. Grand Theft Auto? I think not. Heck... I'll ditch the Adam Sandler movies if I can get a hold of them. I'm not a fan of movies that glorify stupidity either.

You're not a parent, Justin, so it doesn't register yet. You don't have to experience the consequence of your child acting up in school or with friends, and then wondering how to modify the environment so respect and empathy are the operating paradigms. Those qualities don't come from spontaneous generation, and we don't need venues that undermine our ability to teach them. When you have skin in the game and you are responsible for bringing a new child to adulthood, then you will see the world differently.

Preteens aren't little people. They are children. Their minds are different. Kids have the right to be kids before they're expected to deal with adult material and all its subtle but significant nuances.

Bill

[Jason Rees]

McCain used to have similar problems with martial arts, as did/do quite a few other politicians.

No, it was specifically about the UFC, because back then people were getting bloodied and broken alot. He said it was human cock-fighting, and as much as I liked it, he was right. The rules have changed alot since then, and McCain hasn't said a thing about it since.

[Bill Glasheen]

Michael Vick is in prison because of dog fighting, but McCain gets criticized for humans conducting no-holds-barred fighting? Oh, I get it! We value the lives of vulnerable dogs more than that of humans, eh? Got it, PeTA!

McCain has been there. He knows what real human torture is all about. If he wants to speak up about the inhumanity of the early gladiator-like venues, then I'm going to cut him some slack. Present and future MMA fighters have a lot to be thankful for because John McCain didn't mind taking flack for doing the right thing. (Just ask prisoners who were tortured with him in the Hanoi Hilton.)

- Bill

[TSDguy]

I'm pretty sure MMA fighting is voluntary, and I'm pretty sure that's insulting to McCain to even mention it in the same discussion as "The Hanoi Hilton".