Hear, hear!

This is something that has concerned me for a while, actually.

When someone gets dragged away by the police screaming "I did it because I played GTA" after stabbing some old dear in the head with a screwdriver, every games site runs a story along the lines of "Scapegoat! Scapegoat!"

In reality, they should be shuffling their feet and looking at the floor, embarrassed at having played the same game as this maniac. Labelling certain individuals who play games and act out real life violence as one-off cases is just as dangerous as labelling all gamers real-life maniacs.

We need to be extremely careful in the years ahead that this sort of thing doesn't spiral out of control.

On the upside, however, the generation that grew up without games will all die out from old age, soon, and need never bother us again.

What's to be embarassed at? GTA is a good game. And while these people might not be one-offs, they certainly aren't common, and they certainly aren't made what they are by playing video games. Should I be embarassed for being blond-haired and blue-eyed, or for liking some of the same movies as the Columbine guys?

And what about, “the aliens told me to do it”, “god beamed signals into my head telling me to kill”. What about people obsessed with TV shows, celebrity stalkers, kids in the 70’s jumping out of trees because they thought they were Steve Austin.

Everything we view and hear affects us in our daily lives. Everything we see and hear as a child shapes our future. The point isn’t whether these unfortunate loonies are “one offs”; you can’t ban and/or censer everything in the universe. How many people have murdered others because, “God told them”?

“When someone gets dragged away by the police screaming "I did it because God told me" after stabbing some old dear in the head with a screwdriver, every religious site runs a story along the lines of "Scapegoat! Scapegoat!"

In reality, they should be shuffling their feet and looking at the floor, embarrassed at worshipping the same God as this maniac. Labelling certain individuals who worship God and act out real life violence as one-off cases is just as dangerous as labelling all Christians as real-life maniacs.”

I always point out to people that saying games have no effect on you whatsoever is, perhaps, more ignorant than blind faith but they usually call me an idiot and refuse to even think it through.

:( The internet is a sad and scary place.

If nothing else, video games affect your spelling. ;)

But on a less frivolous note, you're correct... but there are always people who will want to make controversial games, just for the sake of it. Just like there are "artists" who create obscene or gory films, sculptures, music, and yes, games. The sad thing is that there are rabid people who buy those products.

But really, I don't think the games affect gamers as much as gamers affect what type of games they play. And if there's a market for it, games will be made to cater those people, like with everything that's disgusting in our society: child porn, drugs, people smuggling... hmm... I wonder if there will ever be an organization that's going to distribute illegal games... maybe the Russian mafia?

You don't understand.  I design video games because I can't spell.  Back in Junior High English class my teacher used to say: "Mr Gilbert!  You better buckle-up and fly straight or you're going to be stuck in a pointless go-nowhere job for the rest of your life!"

Hee hee. That's like Einstein's Greek teacher who told him that nothing would ever become of him... or something along that line.

You need to invest in a Can't-make-fun-of-ron-gilbert text generator, commonly known as a spell checker.

It comes from both sides, I think. There's lunatics like Jack Thompson who have a crusade against Grand Theft Auto, calling them stereotypers of american culture while at the same time saying that developers in scotland are sitting in their kilts drinking single-malt scotch.

I think  that everytime something becomes a billion dollar industry, there is going to be news about it, and usually it's going to be the most entertaining and shocking, because the news think/know that they must entertain over inform in the first place in a christian family-oriented society like the united states.

I do think that video games affect the player based on his/her gender and age, intelligence, etc. Perhaps not to the point to solely training him to be a killer or whatever, but other attitudes and views towards violence, women, video games themselves etc.

And what do you expect from the response of an industry that seems to the public as composed by constantly-pre-pubescent adults and players who love treating the games like objects by giving them points scores in reviews, anyway?

I used to style my hair after Guybrush Threepwood, you know... but I never hypnotised monkeys.

Hmmm. But computer games haven't really been considered an 'artistic' medium yet, or not widely acknowledged as one - I know there are arguments for 'art' in computer games, but it's like the 2001-as-new-millenium argument - a few voices scream 'computer games are art!', while the rest of the world says 'phsure, you say what you like if it makes you happy'.

So without the stigma of creating 'art', game designers are free to wallow in their own base desires, that of creating virtual paintball with real virtual bullets.

Ho hum. I'm just going to sit over here, on this fence.

How about some video games are art (Grim Fandango, Monkey Island, and all those new-fangled games with original graphics and gameplay), and others (GTA) aren't? Just like some paintings are art (Rembrandt) and some aren't (your 3-year-old nephew), and some music is art (Mozart), while other music isn't (Britney Spears).

No, it's all art. It's just a matter of whether it's art you appreciate or not.

Drawing lines between which 'works' are art and which are not is stupid, and is the same mentality that has prevented most people from accepting games as a true artistic medium in the first place.

http://www.imokgame.com - Art? I think so. This game is based off Jack Thompson's 'modest proposal', and is 'a murder simulator so cruel, so bloodthirsty, so horrifyingly violent that it makes Grand Theft Auto seem like Sunday Funday.' (based on their own definition)

This game shows how even violent games can be used for satire and social commentary. It makes fun of the idea that society is blameless while violent games bear all the responsibility, while the irony is that this game is credited with design by Jack Thompson, and without his modest proposal, a game so harmful to his 'cause' would never have been created.

There's so much argument over whether games are or are not art that the other side of the coin's been forgotten.  Is there, or has there ever been a game that's an obscenity?

Gamers don't seem to want to entertain this question.  Many of us are so busy defending our medium that we forget to criticise our content.  Prostitute murdering for fun seems pretty obscene to me, as does US army funded gaming propaganda, near exclusive portrayal of women as scantily clad sex objects, and torture as a gameplay device.  We should really be asking and discussing issues like these.

As always, an interesting and very true read, Mr. Gilbert.

Ron Gilbert wrote:
> I am not suggesting we stop
> making violent games or censor
> (or let anyone censor) ourselves

What are you suggesting, then? What would you consider an appropriate show of responsibility for a designer of violent/controversial games?  Should he/she justify the violence in some way, including a moral/rationalizing/etc layer or maybe social commentary into the game; depict only violence directed towards bad guys, or what?

(Disclaimer and full disclosure: I am an anti-censorship zealot, if you choose to look at it that way. Simply put, I sincerely believe that any position which justifies, condones or advocates any degree whatsoever of censorship in art is indefensible.)

However, the above is a sincere question. From your post, it isn't clear whether you have an opinion on what should be done with regards to the issue of responsibility which you have raised.

For what it's worth, I agree that the way in which many gamers rail against Jack Thompson, or attack statements such as the one by Obama is childish. To be fair, you have to admit that games today have some pretty childish enemies (Thompson for example is almost viscerally embarassing to read, or even read about, which for me personally makes him a lot easier to ignore).

How do you suggest we stand our ground in the face of this latest crusade to intimidate free expression, led as usual largely by intellectual dwarves, followers of religious repression, and the government types who stand to gain from associating with them? Or, if that isn't the stance you personally resonate with, what do you think should be done instead?

DanMarshall wrote:
> In reality, they should be shuffling
> their feet and looking at the floor,
> embarrassed at having played the
> same game as this maniac.

I don't want to live in a world where societal pressure successfully forces people to be embarassed in public about the kind of games they play, or the movies they watch, or the art they buy. I don't want to live in a world where the elementary logical fallacy of "guilt by association" present in your comment drives the way we look at each other.

If you can't understand how somebody can be a perfectly peaceful, gentle, loving person who can function just fine in society, treat women properly, etc, and still play a game like GTA, it is you who should be embarrassed.  I can only hope, Mr. Marshall, that there are enough reasonable, emotionally and intellectually mature folks to keep those of your persuasion from transforming this imperfect world (which I'm learning to live with) into one of the many I could never live in.

Quoth the sage:

"Seize power and try to manipulate people, you will not succeed.  People have their own way and cannot be manipulated.  What you attempt to seize, you destroy; what you attempt to grab, you lose." (Lao Tzu)

--
PG

Well, to think that manipulation doesn't exist is very naive. (Even Lao Tzu wasn't omniscient) It does. Adolf Hitler is the best (and worst!) example for that. Or the many, many people that killed themselves because of Goethe's Werther. Or the mass panic after Wells' War of the worlds. (not that horrible Spielberg/Cruise/Scientology-Coproduction...) Or, or, or...  There are so many examples.
Everytime you say or do something, you influence people.
I don't say that you are fully responsible for everything these people do afterwards, but until a certain degree (mostly a very low degree) you are responsible for it.
The right of free expression is a wonderful thing, but it is dangerous when used without responsibility - just like many rights are.

I don't want violent games to be forbidden, but designers have to ask themselves, if there's really a need for realistic blood, etc. to make a game better. And they have to make themselves clear that their product will influence people at least a bit. And they have to take criticism on that point seriously. They are making themselves untrustworthy if they just ignore or blame every critic.

Just to be clear, I am all for open debate on anything, very much including criticism on responsibility issues and so forth. Never did I say, and I do not maintain, that expression doesn't influence anybody at all ever. I'm also fully aware that Lao Tzu wasn't omniscient, that point was directed simply at what I see as a dangerous trend towards attempted control of things which ultimately cannot be controlled. If you followed the link or read the book, you know that the quote is taken from a chapter on government. The idea is that you cannot grab the world and forcibly make it better, and indeed you will probably cause more damage than you were hoping to prevent if you attempt to.

I draw the line at legislation intended to ban certain "questionable" content or codify a certain morality to the point where a whole gamut of expression is considered taboo. That and only that is the part on which I am unwilling to compromise. Beyond that, my personal take is that it is misguided and unfair to expect designers to follow the moral guidelines you describe to the point where violent games disappear. They never will, as what drives that kind of cultural production is a basic human tendency to explore and dramatize certain facts of life, and it is a drive that is always deeper and stronger than any curtailment of it.

Besides, there are plenty of games in which clearly the designers were thinking as you propose, and showed restraint in depicting graphic violence, included moral undertones, and so on. The world isn't inherently a better place because of that, and it wouldn't be even if every other designer in it followed suit.

That's all. Simply a call to question our emotional reactions to social realities that are best approached with rational clear thinking, as well as an understanding of the implications of anything we might be inclined to do about them.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

--
PG

You didn't get it, do you?

What Lao Tzu wrote is absolutely true in this case. You need to rethink your argument and understand what he wanted to tell us with this.
Hitler detroyed what he was going to seize in a pretty big way. He was going to seize Patriotism and he wanted to be the wole world to be a german empire. This ended in total destruction of the country, making germany even smaller than it was before and caused it to be totally americanized and having lost any cultural identification or patriotism. If you would live here you would very much understand what I'm talking about.
What Hitler achieved with mass-manipulation in the end is that you'll be called a nazi today if you say: "I'm proud to be german". Can you imagine this in the states? You have students singing the national anthem every morning, this in germany would be absolutely UNTHINKABLE!
Don't misinterpret me, I'm absolutely non-patriotic and absolutely not proud to be german. I think you can only be proud of what you achieved in your live personally by your own actions. I could have been born chinese, so what is there to be proud of? But saying "I am not proud to be american" you would maybe called a communist or traitor or, I don't know, maybe even put in jail in some states.
What Lao Tzun said there is very, very wise. It's just as wise as what Sun Tzi said about knowing your enemies and you can misinterpret this big time. And also, dropping any argument in realtion to VIDEOGAMES and using HITLER in any kind of way as an argument is HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE. Shame on you for saying that.

Hi,

to think manipulation works in long terms is in fact very naive. That's what Lao Tzu wanted to tell us, I think. He did not say: "Manipulation doesn't work" (ok, he said that, but he did not MEAN it). What he meant is, that if you do manipulate people to think a certain way, you will cause horrible things to happen and destroy your own ideoligy. You can manipulate people, but this isn't going to result in the goal you intended to achieve by doing it. It will result in the absolute opposite. That's how I understand it.
And History pretty much proofes that. Look at Cuba. Look at the Soviet Union. Look at prohibition. Look at the CIA training the Taliban. Look at catholic Ministers sexually abusing altar boys (which is a pretty good example because it happens all the time and around the whole world. The Church is manipulating it's ministers to not have sex. Which results in child-molesting perverts. The cause intended by the catholic church with celibacy would be that it's representatives are going to be "sin-free" people. What sin can be worse than having sex with children?)

About Lao Tzu. Ain't it really sad that people already knew about these things a very, very long time ago and mankind didn't learn anything from it at all? To this day? If I read here that there are guys who seriously think that you should be ashamed of yourself if you've played a certain kind of game. Are you mad? This state of mind throws us back to the days of Inquisition. We made it to the 21st century. When will man stop seeing everything black-and-white/good-and-evil?

greets,

Koder

I dont get it.You are complain about violent games and all that, and in your list "What im Playing" list is all war and destruccion and violence games:

What I'm Playing...

    * Battlefield 2
    * Bomberman DS
    * Animal Crossing DS
    * Mario Cart DS
    * Professor Fizzwizzle
    * Eve Online
    * Call of Duty 2
    * Shadow of the Something or another (currently not playing due to Sony boycott)

God sake...can´t you just make a Blog like Sun or Micro$oft employes, where they tell and discuss about programming issues, technics,tips,tricks,questions,etc..???
You are an excelent awesome software engineer, please share your acknowledge whit us!!!Teach us something,open our minds, dont be so LeChuck-.

I didn't complain about violent video games, I complained about people who complained about people who complain about violent video games.

Yeah, so there :)
Proffessor fizwizzle sounds pretty gory though, Im not sure about that one :D

Yeah, I heard that Iraq war started after a issue with Bomberman...


And I remember trying to hold my breath for 10 minutes, but I never managed to go thru something around 20 seconds. After that I spend years and years in therapy, Prozac, etc...

I'm of the opinion that artists (whether it's game developers, musicians, film makers, or anything else) do NOT have a responsibility to the people of planet earth. If anyone should have a guilty conscience, it's the marketing departments that push something on an inappropriate audience - that, I agree, isn't right - but art will (and should) always exist to express the highest and lowest points (and everything in-between) of human capacity. Just as beautiful things, terrible things, senseless or gratuitous things exist in life, so should they exist in art.

The real problem here is that we live in a society where people have become so passive and sheep-like that they have stopped taking responsibility for themselves or their children. If people are influenced negatively by art, it's simply because they allow themselves to be. Free thinking is not taught in schools, or by religion, and generally not even by parents, because it's easier to influence someone who doesn't think for themselves. The sheep themselves perpetuate sheep-like society very deliberately, because it offers them something to feel victimised by, and something to evade responsibility by blaming. This is a cultural problem, and it needs to be addressed particularly in the education system, where the most good can be done.

Art is a shimmering reflection of humanity. Whenever art appears to be a problem, there's a problem with the people. Complaining about art is like blaming a mirror for making you look ugly.

Violent people are attracted to violent games. Violent games do NOT make violent people.

Well, I think there's something intrinsically violent in human (animal) nature. It's an evolutionary thing. I don't think you or I are more violent than anyone else if we are attracted to violent games. I've played and enjoyed my fair share of them, but I wouldn't hurt a fly. Violent instincts and tendancies exist in everyone's psyche, and it's a matter of individual choice as to how, or if, we indulge in those tendancies. Most of us indulge in them safely by blowing stuff up in a game, or watching action films. Some indulge them... er... unsafely, by breaking other peoples' heads open, or bombing other countries. It's about choice and personal responsibility, not art.

I agree. I didn't mean that everyone who plays violent games is violent. I meant that the minority of people who are messed up enough to commit murders and other violent acts, are more attracted to violent games than they are to peaceful games. So, this results in people blaming the violent games for 'making that person violent', when in fact they were violent to begin with, and the game was just a hobby of theirs.

The logic of these people who try to shift responsibility is inherently flawed, and in Bowling for Columbine a point is raised "Why shouldn't we blame bowling for the school shootings, since the killers went bowling in the morning before?" People would rather blame something that is relatively new and the majority of people are ignorant about its effect, so they claim that because the killers played Doom, they went out and murdered a bunch of people. There is always more to the story, and to us it seems obvious that they wouldn't just decide to go around killing people in real life because they play a video game (where you kill demons, even). To those who know nothing of video games, they assume that Doom is a vicious 'murder simulator' and that anyone who plays it is going to become more violent in real life and act out their violent urges on real people. The truth is that those with violent tendencies often act out their violence in games, and hobbies such as gaming allow people to de-stress and relax more. The same as someone who is angry or in a bad mood might go and punch a boxing bag and let out their aggression on an object, rather than being violent against people.

I don't think the problem is violence in games, it's naive uncaring parents who let their 7 y/o play GTA. Games, if made right, are an excellent story telling medium.

Yeh. I mean, the makers of R-rated movies aren't getting sued because of impressionable 10 year old kids getting bad ideas from them. Why not? Because people recognise that 10 year olds shouldn't be watching such movies, and that they aren't legally allowed to buy tickets to or rent such movies anyway.

Game retailers need to take some responsibility as well, and start adhering to the same kind of guidelines as cinemas. They should be checking IDs and not selling 18+ games to minors, so that games rating classifications can actually be respected in the same way as movies. If games retailers started refusing to sell these games to people underage, then there would be a lot less controversy over young people being exposed to the violence of GTA, since they shouldn't be playing the game any more than a 10 year old should be renting a porno from the video store.

Yeh. I mean, the makers of R-rated movies aren't getting sued because of impressionable 10 year old kids getting bad ideas from them. Why not? Because people recognise that 10 year olds shouldn't be watching such movies, and that they aren't legally allowed to buy tickets to or rent such movies anyway.

The difference between R-rated movies and video games is that during the first nintendo revolution (NES/SNES era) games were targetted and sold at children, even nintendo (of america) dumbed down the japanese games so that children would play them. And because that was probably the first incredible outburst of console gaming, a lot of people have the preconception that video games are still for kids, even though the primary audience has been teens for the past 10 years. Where as kids can't get to R-rated movies nor are insterested in buying them on dvd because they rather spend their allowance or tell their parents to buy them a video game. And because some parents are not paying any attention, they buy whatever the kid wants. Remember, most of them (those who bitch about it) still think that only children would play video games, so games must be designed for them, right?

I suppose it is similar in a way to how cartoons used to be considered 'just for kids'. The resistance against cartoons such as South Park seems to have died down a bit. I believe that cartoons like The Simpsons with adult themes and undertones in the episodes, have given society a greater respect for the medium, and most adults who have watched an episode of The Simpsons would probably agree that it is not just a cartoon for children.

With time, hopefully video games will gain this same respect. It seems to me like it is a matter of actually having these critics PLAY the games themselves to gain an understanding, rather than them making blind judgements.

the 'editorial' completely misuses the term "whipping boy"

When you are placed on level pegging with TV, and "avoiding tough classes in school" - you are hardly being singled out (ie meaning of whipping boy).  Hell, we should be thanking this Obama guy for suggesting video games are as benign as TV.

Although the reaction is completely "boy cries wolf" GP does bring up an interesting point in the fact that Korea is video game crazy, but its high school maths and science results are always amongst the top three worldwide.
http://nces.ed.gov/timss/TIMSS03Tables.asp?figure=5&Quest

I suspect that if you analysed the results, the countries which succeed despite video games, are also countries with the strictest parenting, and strictest secondary schooling during these years. Definitely true of singapore, taiwan, and japan.

Lets not kid ourselves, video games are clearly a distraction to studying.

So it's true people turn conservative when they reach their forties...

... Just kiddin :)

Sorry, not a native english speaker...

I think games can change people. But not as extreme as some republican politicians try to tell us. Of course, I prefer to drive faster after I played NFSU and it's definetely true that kicking some daemons ass is really some sort of Yoga for my mind...

But that is just all. My personality is stable enough to see what is reality and what's not. I guess some people do not have the mental experience and take stuff serious but most people are stable enough to get that just running around and throwing people out of a car is just wrong.

But on the other hand, games from today are extremely realistic (thanks Havoc, PhysX, 3D-HDTV) and NPCs behave like intelligent beings now. Or people try to escape in MMORPGs like WoW or stuff like that.

When we were young, we had sprites of Gianna Sisters or R-Type. Later there was this pirate-trainee and suddenly we had a 3D-Indiana-Jones.. The games did not really get better (from a logic point) but they got more catching (from the emotional point). No one will doubt that it IS great to see how realistic bodies fly through the air when they are nuked with a big rocket. And everybody was having fun when Duke Nukem went around and killed prostitutes. It was not useful in the game but everybody enjoyed it.

Hey, well said Ron. :)

My friend punched my other friend in the nose during a binge drinking 19th birthday party of mine almost 10 years ago now.  They were having a pirate argument that became more boisterous as it went on.  I started the whole argument with "You fight like a dairy farmer" and you can imagine how it went from then on...... anyway.. the outcome was poor Jimmy getting a blood nose and Barrel not even remembering that he'd hit jimmy for the pirate insult in the first place...

from memory the pirate insult was:

"Dutch pirates are so gay!"

and the possible retort should have been :

"You are rubber, I am Glue!"

but it was a blood nose instead.

oh well.. but funny memories

You're again getting the point, Ron. It's a pleasure to read!

Dang. Either my comment got deleted or I forgot to press add comment after preview comment or something.  That's at least the second time that happened.

With great power comes great responsibility.

:-)

I agree.

And that's why Senator Obama should be ashamed.

He had a chance to send a meaningful message to these students.  He could have pointed out why math and science skills are so important.  Heck, he might have pointed out that critical thinking, follow-thru, and perserverance are critical in the "real world".

But he didn't.  He took a cheap shot at what HE THINKS are the problems with youth culture.  TV, games, and easy classes... What an inspired list!  Oh thanks for your great wisdom, Senator! ;-P

He was saying that the problem with youth culture is that they spend their time watching TV and playing games when they SHOULD be working. Can you honestly say that you have never delayed your homework because you wanted to watch a certain TV show, or were in the middle of a good game?

Someone said
That's a time management issue, not a game issue.

If that's your argument, then dating, partying, fraternizing, and socializing should be next on your list -- because I seem to remember blowing off lots of homework in college because I was doing these things.

Rhett wrote: "He could have pointed out why math and science skills are so important"

He did - just follow the link that game politics posted: "If we continue on a course where we rank in the bottom five percent of industrialized countries in math and science tests and know our economy is going to be based on how we compete technologically, we're going to be out of luck," he said.

The point here is that Game Politics is overreacting, and not only jeopordising its own credibility - but the credibiliity of the industry. Save up your wrath and ire for when it really matters, I reckon.

Ah, missed that quote.  Well, that sort of weakens my argument a bit, no?

But I still disagree that GP was crying wolf.  I think their characterization is pretty accurate:  "There is a subtle yet virulent strain of video game bashing that runs through the non-gaming mainstream, day-in and day-out."

I just think it's sad that the old "if it's fun, it must be a waste of time" attitude of these fuddy-duddies is actually being defended here.  Makes ME grumpy.

What's interesting is that Japan is as big, if not a bigger industry for gaming.  Yet isn't Japan at top, or close, as far as math and science scores go?

Though he may be right in some respects, I don't think placing blame ever really helps anyone.

Which rankings was he talking about anyway?  The timms http://timss.bc.edu/?  I think that's like 4th and 8th graders and in 2003 we were more like around the 50th percent http://nces.ed.gov/timss/Results03.asp.

Mostly unrelated, my girlfriend was in a group project with someone in her sociology class at my local University, and she didn't know what the constitution  or Microsoft Word was.  She also had poor writing skills, among other things.  I don't know how she managed to get into college, but it kind of scared me...made me really wonder what kind of students we have in our colleges.  I don't know her story...I almost hoped she had been in an accident or ODed on drugs or something(not that I would ever wish that on someone), but as far as I know, she wasn't a gamer.

Very nice blog!!!

http://nordkapp.splinder.com

After I played Monkey Island, I started to use the 'look behind you! A three headed monkey' on almost everybody I met... in the end I became very isolated socially...

I SERIOUSLY doubt that Senator Barack Obama was just trying to say: say your prayers, take your vitamins and believe in yourself. I'm sure he was trying to get the old scapegoat of this is wrong and you should not do it. But i don[t agree with the idea of not saying anything just because we could sound like little a boy who is crying wolf, if you stay quiet then the attacks will grow up, and up to the point that everybody is going to jump to the opportunity of blaming games for everything that is wrong. If somebody knows this are the ethnic groups, they complain when they are attacked not because they want to sound like a cry baby, they do it because they don't want to be used as scape goats. And right now we know that games are considered "violence trainers". And for if the games are art or not well..... let's just say this: if the movies of quentin tarantino are called art, then why games can't????? BTW why nobody blames quentin for things like violence???? instead he wins an oscar, don't take me wrong i don't have anything against him is just that i don't understand why this senators doesn't blame this guys too when it comes to find scape goats.... but if somebody dared to say that quentin is creating assasins then EVERYBODY will jump and will complain why??? because he is an artist (altough he's more a copycat that copies movies and plots from movies of asia) so why we shouldn't?????

> if you stay quiet then the attacks will grow up,
Its not an attack. No one except a select few gamers perceives it as an attack on video games. Most people will see it as a simple time management issue: games take up time, tv takes up time, and thats time that should be spent studying.

Do you see the TV community up in arms? No.

Do you even see any other credible media outlet seeing this as an attack on video games? No.

But if the defence about this "attack" keeps up, the news of the defence will creep into the mainstream media.  And then they will read what Obama has said, realise everyone is over reacting, and remember to discount anything the video games community says in the future.

maybe you are right in saying that it wasn't an attack, it was more like a critic. i give you that, but is this good for us???? i mean the line reads: "criticizing youth culture as "watching TV, playing video games and avoiding tough classes in school"  at the end he was calling this actions bad conducts which can cause problems in the youth putting it to avoiding classes which in my personal opinion is a little bit more serious  than playing a game. but he didn't say don't skip your classes just because you want to read the last harry potter book, at the end any activity can be bad if you become obsessed with it, but for some reason those three are always the bad examples and that's what i don't like. But anyway we are talking about this example because that's the one ron was talking about, and maybe it is a little bit exagerated to get mad at THIS comment in particular, but what about the comments of ms clinton which were nothing but an opportunity to be seen as the lady who saves our youth instead of the lady who was cheated by her husband??? i agree that you can't fight all the time just because the word video games was used, but i don't think that we should stay quiet when a direct attack  is done just because we are going to sound like brats, take starforce as an example, what if we'd have stayed quiet???? according to  starforce the ones complaining were stupid pirates frustrated for not beeing able to brake the protection, but thanks to those complains ubi finally dropped starforce. so at the end if you don't let your voice be heard, then don't complain later when senator and companies do whatever they want , even at the price of you, the user......

In my view the whole question of whether games influence behaviour is beside the point.  Of course they do.  Just like literature, music, and film do.  My advice to the world at large is to get over your fear of the medium and start dealing with the message, by picking up the tools the medium offers and using them to deliver an opposing viewpoint.
More on this topic can be found at my post on The Dust Forms Words.

Someone above warns about people becoming conservatives in their forties. That's the whole point, not absurdly violent videogames, nor low-popularity senators, nor american way of thinking (in my country this stupidities are said, too).

Two commentaries:

- There are ways and ways for telling things. Ranting and then rephrase things is hypocrisy (and maybe cowardice).

- Ignorancy about law doesn't reduces the crime, and same does to declare oneself "incoherent and bitter" and then say stupid things.

Whereas declaring that someone else has said stupid things without defining what those stupid things are is definitely a sign of cowardice. The internet population doesn't have much patience for people who present arguments without following them up with reasoning. That's just farting in the wind.

Cannot read, can we?

There's an internet argument tactic called 'how to win an argument without actually saying anything'. It only ever works in the minds of people who use it.

Definitely, not.

Try this argument:

If the community is insulted (directly or with stupid arguments, like the senator's) has all right to respond in the same vein, like GP did.

If someone, like the creator of this forum (or pope Ratzinguer himself), believes that cuestioning stupid arguments is overreact, they are proclaming his own stupidity (or as I and another people suggested, their age crisis).

If RG would wanted to say "Save your efforts for someone who deserves them", he would have said exactly that. If that retarded-but-not-enough senator would have wanted nothing but to comment the creation of an age code for games, he would have done exactly that. But they didn't, and besides they started to rephrase two paragraphs below. Pathetic.

I'm tired of people in positions of power, like a senator, the owner of this domain, (or preclare people who proclaim that videogames are not art) etc., cuestioning when and how other people must respond to someone's rants.

(FART)

That was me.

it's about time that we, the artist/writer/creative-type-d'jour, stop doing the fence-jump on this issue: "art reflects culture" (when in trouble with authorities) vs. "art drives culture" (trying to get money or laid) instead of admitting that that the area is a bit greyish and both happen - often at the same time.

I agree with Ron, %100. Fascism is always a problem, and there are Pro-videogame fascists as well as the anti-videogame school.

We know games can cause seizures. I’m glad games have warnings for epileptics. Some games just aren’t appropriate for kids. I’m glad they have warning labels. If (and I said if) they can ever prove a link between game violence and game playing we should all own up to it. This isn’t an issue of censorship, it’s being responsible and standing behind your product.

Kids shouldn’t be seeing Ichi the Killer. Kids shouldn’t be smoking and drinking. Kids shouldn’t be playing GTA.

But that’s kids. What about adults or teens? Teens are going to experiment. Some teens WANT to and WILL sneak into their parent’s liquor cabinet, or get high, or crib porn or whatever. The teen years are difficult. It’s a time to learn what you like as an adult and what your limits are.

Problem drinkers can’t handle liquor like others. They use it as a crutch, they get violent, they ignore their family and responsibilities…I think there are gamers just the same.

I get really disappointed whenever I read a blogger defend videogames as if they are delicate flowers existing in a vacuum. Let’s be honest. Everything is connected. Better games means a better society.

"Fascism is always a problem, and there are Pro-videogame fascists as well as the anti-videogame school."
Using the term "fascism" in this context is simply incorrect. I have to assume you don't know what fascism means and I suggest you look up the word in an encyclopaedia before using it so careless.

"Kids shouldn’t be seeing Ichi the Killer. Kids shouldn’t be smoking and drinking. Kids shouldn’t be playing GTA. "
Agree. how do you prevent them from doing it? By forbidding it? What do you achieve by doing so? I tell you: making them more curious to the subject than they were before, more willing to try BECAUSE it's forbidden. If forbidding everything would work it would have done so when children were raised this way.
Funny Story: My dad once caught me secretly smoking in the backyard when I was 9 years old. he said: "Oh, you like to smoke, too? But why are you smoking those stupid cigarettes? That's not REAL smoking, you know? I will show you how to smoke!" then he got me one of his cigars (a HUGE one) and made me smoke it all up. I coughed hard all the time when I was finished I turned all-green and puked. My dad laughed and said: "Well, If you ever feel like smoking again, go ahead, they're in the top drawer of my desk, so feel free to take one".
I never smoked again to this day. Another thing: My dad always drank beer when we had lunch. i remember asking him if I can have one too (he was and still is my biggest role-model). He said: "Why not?" (getting pretty embarrassed looks from mother). So I took a sip. And found it tasted pretty bad, all bitter, not quiet coca-cola. If my dad would have told me "No way. That's grown-ups only" he would've made me curious. I'd have thought there must be something about it at last and maybe would've ignored the taste to find out what it is. Do you get my point? Forbidding solves nothing, at last it didn't do with me. All my childhood, if I ever wanted to do something stupid my dad would let me . He let me made the experience for myself so I can learn something from it. That's the best way to raise a child. He let me play Larry Laffer when I was 11. He explained to me what to type in the parser to solve the puzzles. In the prostitute scene larry died cause he didn't use I lubber. I said:"hey! Why did I die?" And my dad said: "Well, that hooker had AIDS. If you ever f*ck a hooker, you'll better use a lubber. That is, if you don't wanna commit suicide. It's a slow and painful death by the way, they didn't get that right in the game." (that's exactly what he said to me and I still rember like it was yesterday). See, even that game had some educational value after all :-)

"Problem drinkers can’t handle liquor like others. They use it as a crutch, they get violent, they ignore their family and responsibilities"
You assume Alcoholism is a disease. If you make a heavy drinker think that way you give him a nice chance to not shoulder responsibility over his own life. Turning him into a sheep. "It's not my fault. I'm sick." Well, it IS his fault, it's his weakness and the only way out will be just quit drinking, how hard it may be. There is no cure, there can't be. Drinkers are not sick, drinkers are just weak in a certain way. If it is in your DNA to turn alcoholic, it's also in your DNA to drive fast or to abuse children.

"Better games means a better society."
What do you call "better games"??? Would it have made the world better if "Pulp Fiction" was about two Mormons instead of two Marxmen? Or would it have  taken a fantastic piece of art away from us? Are paintings better when they show beautiful things? Or when they express the feelings the artist had when painting it? Would Johnny Cash's songs been better if he just wrote about god instead of shooting a man in Reno (just to watch him die) or hanging his head?
Art has many forms. Beautiful and Ugly. Art is NOT about beeing nice and beautiful, art is about transporting feelings. If I want to transport beauty and get it right it's art. If I intend to transport depression and it works I got it right. If the reciepent doesn't get what the artist meant it's still art. As long as the receiver FEELS anything (hate, love, happiness, sadness, all possible emotions) about the Artwork, then it works. And hell, who says Video Games are NOT art? Do you have any idea whose blog this is?

wrote too much, sorry.

Another problem is that if you disavow the possible negative consequences of the content of certain games - or even the possibility of there BEING negative consequences, no matter what's in the game - then you also disavow the possibility of postive impact and genuine artistic worth.

If games can't be "bad" because they're.. you know, only games... then they also can't be "good" for the same reason.

Hollywood types fall into the same trap when they collect attaboys for inspirational, moving films about Malcolm X, Gandhi, handicapped people or whatnot, then talk out of the other side of their mouths to dismiss complaints about the glorification of violence in action and horror movies, how racial minorities were/are portrayed, and so on.

Gamers want to eat their cake and have it, too. But if SimCity can teach us about urban planning, GTA3 can show us that violence is only wrong if you get caught. Like all other forms of "art," if games can ennoble us then they can degrade us.

Your argument sounds reasonable enough, but for two things:

1)  Studies have shown there to actually be real benefits to game playing.  Likewise, studies have not found any causal link between game playing and negative behavior.  I.e., the EVIDENCE says that video games really do seem to do more good than harm.  Funny, it's like a cake you can eat, but still have it.

2)  There is a difference between saying "games are bad" vs. "this ONE game IN PARTICULAR is bad".  This is what the industry needs to watch out for, and it's why the Senator is off base.  If the Senator wants to criticize a particular game, and has a good reason for doing so, great.  Otherwise, his silly comments are just as dumb as saying "movies are a waste", "music is frivolous", "visual art is folly", "theatre is crap", "literature is useless", etc.

Rhett, I don't see where that contradicts what I said.

As for 1), I'll bet you cash money that we cannot find scientific evidence of a direct, causal link between reading books and personal behavior. Yet, if you caught your kid reading The Turner Diaries would you wave it off as "just a book" or want to sit down with him and address the content therein?

My point is simply this: If we claim games can be instructive in the manner of other forms of creative expression - and I think they can be - then the "instructions" being given become grounds for scrutiny. The only way games can be categorically harmless is if they're ephemeral and meaningless.

As for 2), I completely agree. "Gaming" per se is no more inherently bad or good than any other entertainment.

well said Ron, I agree industry should take responsibility, especially for games like Morrowind and Oblivion, when am i suppost to find time to study. What i would like to see is real life puzzles in a game, A futuristic World where you can use and have to learn all aspects of Higher maths and Physics. Maybe not to win the main quest that would reduce the market, but as a side, like building your own town, or becoming arena champion. I want to be able to learn thermal dynamics in a game, take a test and then be one step nearer to having a Mphys in the game :) that would be so cool! and i might get some work done.

I couldn't live without video games!!!

Every product has its impact whether it is positive or negative. But games should be played just as games. They r to relax your mind and body. But it depends on person to person how they take it. For me they r whole lot of fun.

Gamepolitics makes Chuck Norris cry.

It's the parent's responsibility.  Not the game industry or the government.

Rate the games. Enforce the ratings at retail.  Beyond that, hands off.

I just love playing video games! The industry don't know what kind of impact their r putting on the players. They just make it for pure pleasure and fun. Its later upto people how they take it.

Come on games r played just for fun and to pass time. If they r putting any bad impact then they should be choosen wisely.

I can't hear it nor more, I can't hear it no more !!!!

Can't you just find another example for a violent game than GTA? I get it, i already got it 200  Threads ago. I am not talking to Ron but all the Comments I read here. When you mention a game you don't like you mention GTA and blame it for beeing violent. I agree, but I'm so sick and tired of reading it over and over and over again. There are many other violent games out there, damnit.

And i'm tired of all this "responsibility"-talk either. Do Hollywood-Filmmakers take any responsibility? Leave it to people what they watch and what they play.
People are fascinated with violence. You won't change that, even if everybody stops now making any violent games at all. If only one brings out a violent game then it will sell like iPods. You can't change mankind and you shouldn't always see games in the educative sense. At last it's just entertainment, and everybody should be free of choosing how they like to be entertained.  Stop blaming people for playing violent games, stop blaming developers for giving them what they want. No one tilits out because he played a game. It's already in his head. If you're a pathetic, sick-minded psycho you'll watch snuff-videos and play violent games. If there weren't any you'd still be a pathic psycho and get all kinds of weird ideas. Maybe then from books. Did anyone ever blame Bukowski for writing sick books??? No, because they're brilliant. It doesn't matter if there is a lot of sex or there is a lot of violence in it. It's Art. GTA is brilliant and it's art and it pretty sure is THE game which will be mentioned in 10 years when they're writing about the games of this decade. It doesn't just sell because it has a lot of senseless violence. It's a good game. It has atmosphere. Like a good book. There could be more games without any violence. There could be more games for kids. But don't blame anybody if they feel entertained through violence. Don't point fingers at people who laugh when they see a cut-off head. That's black humor, if this wasn't there live would be quite boring. Man, the bible is pretty violent too. Senseless, too. Not everything in there has educational value.  Ok, it's interactive. You can kill anyone in that game. This gets boring after half an hour of slaughter, then you get to play the missions. You never have to kill grandmas and children in the missions. Even if you had to, what's the fkin point?
As you all are SO much interested in making this world or your country any better, get your ass off the couch and do something about selling guns and ammunation in the supermarket.
Sorry, my english is bad. I'm german.

We sell guns and ammo in supermarkets? News to me.

GTA3 is a great game. It's certainly videogame "art." It's also morally degenerate. These two things are not mutually contradictory. There's room for reasonable, 'pro-game' people to disagree on what if anything should be 'done' about such things.

What irks me are people who can not or do not bother to distinguish the legal vs moral issues involved - the "can" vs "should" dimension of it. Defending the rights of adults to buy and play GTA3 and similar games on 1st Amendment grounds (which I do) doesn't require me to approve of them aesthetically or morally. Even worse is the suggestion that we shouldn't even open a "values" discussion because hey, they're just games... all the while angrily demanding respect from the culture-at-large for games as "art." That dog won't hunt.

PS - Some free tactical advice, Annoyed:

The "well, there's sex/violence in the Bible" argument is a non-starter. The stories of the Bible occur in a context of explicit moral caution and instruction - whether you think them literally true or metaphorical as I do. If you're making a "hey, lighten up" point, you could not choose a worse example.

If people r fascinated by violence then why they are putting all the blame on the industry. Its hard to change human nature. The better option is that they should stop playing them. Others r also playing it with a good heart.

Even worse is the suggestion that we shouldn't even open a "values" discussion because hey, they're just games... all the while angrily demanding respect from the culture-at-large for games as "art." That dog won't hunt.


Then who would want to start a value discussion regarding ANY Artform?
art isn't compelled to be morally.

"Then who would want to start a value discussion regarding ANY Artform?
art isn't compelled to be morally."

Isn't compelled to be morally WHAT?

Morality is inescapable. Even the belief that "art for the sake of art" is a worthwhile undertaking is itself, partially, a moral position.

Its the responsibility of the parent's to moniter the actions of their children. Least the game industry can do is to rate the games but they can't stop them from buying.
Rest is in our hands!!!

'How many people have murdered others because, “God told them”? '

Yitzak Rabin was murdered by someone who thought that the tenets of Orthodox Judaism commanded it.  For the most part the Orthodox Jewish community went into deep self examination at that point.  SOME parts of the community refused to do so, and claimed they were being persecuted.

I think its quite reasonable to ask the gaming community to engage in some serious self examination.

I like you site! I bookmark it! But in video games i do not play:(

Everything has its positive and negative aspects. Influence varies from individual to individual, we cannot make it a general tendency and shut down the whole industry of video games.

Stop blindly blaming video games for increasing voilence and crime. Its simply a mode of entertainment. Wat the hell can video games industry do if someone takes the imagery on their personal lives.

You captured it perfectly, Ron.

Exactly, a loads of unwanted and unrealistic stuff is shown in these games, which influence the minds of people and increase the rate of crime and violence unneccessarily.

I love nintendo. It had'nt influenced me so far anyways!!!!!!!!!!!
.........and it wont. So stop blindly blaming video games. They dont ve any such graphics, presentations which may add to crime and violence.

You know, surprisingly, I wrote myself a big ol' piece on how video games are not necessarily innocent little angels (from a gamers perspective):

http://www.flickergaming.net/index.php/2006/06/16/ban-violent-games-for-minors-sure-why-not/

"It is also not my business to pass judgment on these video games......

That's ridiculous. Every time we play and we make a judgement. Since nothing is certain, it may or may not affect some people.

As i can say, anything and everything is acceptable until and unless it's not affecting other's people's life, may it be these video games, television, internet or the changing fashion too.
.........if something is adding to violence and crime, it should be abolished without a second thought.
I know its quite a general view but.............

Yeah!
Since I played Monkey Island, I started robbing things from stores and putting everything on my pants

Really? Then that is the same that happens to me!

Since I played MI I'm a zombie pirat under LeChucks orders...

Whithout jokes, yes, of course, games affect people if they are not enough mature and unfortunately, a lot of guys out there don't think, there are people that sometimes cannot difference the reality and the videogames. That's the same problem that there is with movies, TV or music...