• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do violent video games actually cause violence?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: BriGy86
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Gotta agree with Amused here. You can't child proof the world. And you'd end up with a bunch of pussies anyway if you could.

true, i hate how 3 stupid people that can't do their jobs as parents have to ruin it for thousands of other people

I get your theory, but I think its been a couple more than three.
 
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Gotta agree with Amused here.

Hurts, don't it? 😛

Right in the chest area.

Bah. I agree with you more often than not. Even when I don't, I usually get owned with your unbending logic. Which I will admit is frustrating.

This whole thing is just the continuation of a blame shifting trend we've had going on for awhile now. Americans don't like the idea of national healthcare, but we already seem to have national childcare in the works.


Ok stop kissing his ass, but if I understand you two to be saying that banning violent video games is stupid, and irresponsible, just like trying to censor cigarette ads.... then I agree with you.

-Max

 
Originally posted by: Doboji
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Gotta agree with Amused here.

Hurts, don't it? 😛

Right in the chest area.

Bah. I agree with you more often than not. Even when I don't, I usually get owned with your unbending logic. Which I will admit is frustrating.

This whole thing is just the continuation of a blame shifting trend we've had going on for awhile now. Americans don't like the idea of national healthcare, but we already seem to have national childcare in the works.


Ok stop kissing his ass, but if I understand you two to be saying that banning violent video games is stupid, and irresponsible, just like trying to censor cigarette ads.... then I agree with you.

-Max

:cookie:
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Doboji
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Gotta agree with Amused here.

Hurts, don't it? 😛

Right in the chest area.

Bah. I agree with you more often than not. Even when I don't, I usually get owned with your unbending logic. Which I will admit is frustrating.

This whole thing is just the continuation of a blame shifting trend we've had going on for awhile now. Americans don't like the idea of national healthcare, but we already seem to have national childcare in the works.


Ok stop kissing his ass, but if I understand you two to be saying that banning violent video games is stupid, and irresponsible, just like trying to censor cigarette ads.... then I agree with you.

-Max

:cookie:


*munch* *munch*
 
Originally posted by: BroeBo
I think there is a big difference between oh say killing someone and smoking cigarettes. Kids see others smoking cigarettes and they think its cool and all the ads showed people having fun and being popular/thin while smoking cigarettes. If they see someone getting killed in a video game do they still think "yeah, that would be cool to murder someone someone, I would be so popular at school".

I just don't think its a fair comparison.

:thumbsup:

great point. its comparing grapes to watermelons. smoking is something thats portrayed as "cool" in ads and society. killing someone is not.

i voted nay. i've been playing violent games (MK1 on Genesis, I had to get the one with blood 🙂) and all that crap since it first came out, and i have no intention in killing anyone, nor do any of my friends. same with movies, i've been watching R movies since I was probably 7-8 years old and i'm fine in that sense too. those sex scenes with the parents in the room really were wierd though when i hit like 12 years old heh.
 
Originally posted by: purbeast0
Originally posted by: BroeBo
I think there is a big difference between oh say killing someone and smoking cigarettes. Kids see others smoking cigarettes and they think its cool and all the ads showed people having fun and being popular/thin while smoking cigarettes. If they see someone getting killed in a video game do they still think "yeah, that would be cool to murder someone someone, I would be so popular at school".

I just don't think its a fair comparison.

:thumbsup:

great point. its comparing grapes to watermelons. smoking is something thats portrayed as "cool" in ads and society. killing someone is not.

i voted nay. i've been playing violent games (MK1 on Genesis, I had to get the one with blood 🙂) and all that crap since it first came out, and i have no intention in killing anyone, nor do any of my friends. same with movies, i've been watching R movies since I was probably 7-8 years old and i'm fine in that sense too. those sex scenes with the parents in the room really were wierd though when i hit like 12 years old heh.

also true, smoking is legal, running people over with cars and shooting them is not
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: BroeBo
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: BroeBo
I think there is a big difference between oh say killing someone and smoking cigarettes. Kids see others smoking cigarettes and they think its cool and all the ads showed people having fun and being popular/thin while smoking cigarettes. If they see someone getting killed in a video game do they still think "yeah, that would be cool to murder someone someone, I would be so popular at school".

I just don't think its a fair comparison.

Influence is influence. Do you have any doubt that the Columbine murderers thought what they did was "cool?"

What about non-deadly violence? Do you think some kids saw Fight Club and emulated what they saw? Do you think bullies are emulating what they have seen?

To claim advertisements can influence behavior, but movies and games cannot is such obvious hypocrisy, I have a hard time believing anyone even attempts to justify it. And yet, I am constantly surprised.

It really all boils down to who's bull is getting gored. Banning ads doesn't affect you, so you don't care. But censoring games and movies DOES affect you, and suddenly, you care.

The main difference between movies/video games vs advertisements is that you can control what video games and movies your kids watch. You don't control when they see advertisements.

There are certain types of people who raise violent kids (for whatever reason) , those kids then may commit violent acts. The kids obviously don't want to take responsibility for their actions and neither do the parents who know they are to blame for raising their kid to be a little thug. So where does the blame go? Oh of course, it was the video games!! They are the devil!

You honestly think parents control the games, shows and movies their kids see?

If they did, would this controversy even exist?

This whole pile of crap is over parents NOT taking responsibility for the content their kids watch and play.

Again, influence is influence. You're making the very same excuses the anti game/movie content folks are making.

Honestly I don't really care about the cigarette ads. I was just pointing out the difference.

Yes parents can control what their children see. Does it really matter? No. Like I said before, I watched horror movies and played violent video games as a kid. Did that cause me to be violent? No. It's either the parents fault or some kind of mental problem that is to blame for violence. You could also argue that its the parents fault for not noticing that something was wrong with their kid.
 
I did a research paper on this last year for a freshman level english class. Almost everything I read said that in normal people, video games do not cause violence. Some people with underlying mental conditions can be affected more so by the violence.
 
Originally posted by: Doboji
Personally I think nothing should be banned or censored. Including cigarette ads, etc. And especially not violent video games.

-Max

Nothing?!? That's a pretty broad term. So if I owned a newspaper and ran a story stating Doboji was a known child molester (I'm guessing that's not actually true), there should be no legal way to stop me? I can think of lots of examples which might make you think otherwise.
 
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Doboji
Personally I think nothing should be banned or censored. Including cigarette ads, etc. And especially not violent video games.

-Max

Nothing?!? That's a pretty broad term. So if I owned a newspaper and ran a story stating Doboji was a known child molester (I'm guessing that's not actually true), there should be no legal way to stop me? I can think of lots of examples which might make you think otherwise.


There's a difference between censorship and preventing slander.
 
Originally posted by: Doboji
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Doboji
Personally I think nothing should be banned or censored. Including cigarette ads, etc. And especially not violent video games.

-Max

Nothing?!? That's a pretty broad term. So if I owned a newspaper and ran a story stating Doboji was a known child molester (I'm guessing that's not actually true), there should be no legal way to stop me? I can think of lots of examples which might make you think otherwise.


There's a difference between censorship and preventing slander.

OK, so define censorship.
 
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Doboji
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Doboji
Personally I think nothing should be banned or censored. Including cigarette ads, etc. And especially not violent video games.

-Max

Nothing?!? That's a pretty broad term. So if I owned a newspaper and ran a story stating Doboji was a known child molester (I'm guessing that's not actually true), there should be no legal way to stop me? I can think of lots of examples which might make you think otherwise.


There's a difference between censorship and preventing slander.

OK, so define censorship.


Attempting to block media material believed to be inappropriate for certain audiences for moral reasons.

You're gonna turn this into a semantic argument where we blur the definitions of censorship into utter uselessness arent you?
 
Originally posted by: Doboji


Attempting to block media material believed to be inappropriate for certain audiences for moral reasons.

And political. Don't forget the main reason for freedom of speech and press was to ensure the freedom to speak freely and publicly about politics.
 
Just out of curiosity, but if a game was released which gameplay was mainly to go around raping and molesting children, would you have a problem with it? Why, it's only a game. It won't cause people to do it.

Studies have been done on this countless times, and games DO increase aggression. Does it CAUSE violence? Will playing a game about car theft make you go out and steal a car? Of course not. But if you've just played a violent game, you're more likely to be in an aggressive mindset... that's not that after playing Doom, you're going to be seeing red and be on the brink of some violence if somebody pisses you off. But there's been studies done on children AND adults, that if you let the children watch a violent movie, then leave them alone to play with dolls or each other, they play is more aggressive. Have adults watch a violent movie, and then put them in a stressful situation (such as how they would respond to a malfunctioning computer on a test), and they're more likely to react more aggressively.

EVERYTHING influences our moods and behaviors (that's different than CAUSING a behavior). What we smell, what we hear, even the color we see can influence our mood, and our mood can influence our reaction to an event. Listen to elevator music in the gym, and your workout will be pretty lame... listen to something that can excite you, and your workout will be intense.
 
Originally posted by: Doboji
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Doboji
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Doboji
Personally I think nothing should be banned or censored. Including cigarette ads, etc. And especially not violent video games.

-Max

Nothing?!? That's a pretty broad term. So if I owned a newspaper and ran a story stating Doboji was a known child molester (I'm guessing that's not actually true), there should be no legal way to stop me? I can think of lots of examples which might make you think otherwise.


There's a difference between censorship and preventing slander.

OK, so define censorship.


Attempting to block media material believed to be inappropriate for certain audiences for moral reasons.

You're gonna turn this into a semantic argument where we blur the definitions of censorship into utter uselessness arent you?

That would take two of us.
Anyway, so you're opposed to age-based restrictions on certain materials? I can't agree with that. We have age-limits with voting and driving, so restricting the sale of Playboy to adults doesn't seem egregious.
 
Originally posted by: Looney
Just out of curiosity, but if a game was released which gameplay was mainly to go around raping and molesting children, would you have a problem with it? Why, it's only a game. It won't cause people to do it.

Studies have been done on this countless times, and games DO increase aggression. Does it CAUSE violence? Will playing a game about car theft make you go out and steal a car? Of course not. But if you've just played a violent game, you're more likely to be in an aggressive mindset... that's not that after playing Doom, you're going to be seeing red and be on the brink of some violence if somebody pisses you off. But there's been studies done on children AND adults, that if you let the children watch a violent movie, then leave them alone to play with dolls or each other, they play is more aggressive. Have adults watch a violent movie, and then put them in a stressful situation (such as how they would respond to a malfunctioning computer on a test), and they're more likely to react more aggressively.

EVERYTHING influences our moods and behaviors (that's different than CAUSING a behavior). What we smell, what we hear, even the color we see can influence our mood, and our mood can influence our reaction to an event. Listen to elevator music in the gym, and your workout will be pretty lame... listen to something that can excite you, and your workout will be intense.


It should be legal to create so long as it doesn't actually use children in it's creation. I think it's sick and disgusting, and would never play it. However the game itself should not be illegal.

As for your ascertion about violent video games increasing aggression.... I dont see how this is true, as many people in this forum will verify most people here have played significantly larger quantities of violent video games than the rest of the population. Would you then also assume that we are more violent than the rest of the population? I would argue no.

 
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Doboji
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Doboji
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Doboji
Personally I think nothing should be banned or censored. Including cigarette ads, etc. And especially not violent video games.

-Max

Nothing?!? That's a pretty broad term. So if I owned a newspaper and ran a story stating Doboji was a known child molester (I'm guessing that's not actually true), there should be no legal way to stop me? I can think of lots of examples which might make you think otherwise.


There's a difference between censorship and preventing slander.

OK, so define censorship.


Attempting to block media material believed to be inappropriate for certain audiences for moral reasons.

You're gonna turn this into a semantic argument where we blur the definitions of censorship into utter uselessness arent you?

That would take two of us.
Anyway, so you're opposed to age-based restrictions on certain materials? I can't agree with that. We have age-limits with voting and driving, so restricting the sale of Playboy to adults doesn't seem egregious.

I dont think they should restrict the sale of playboy to adults... just like they shouldnt ban nudity or crude language on public tv.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Doboji


Attempting to block media material believed to be inappropriate for certain audiences for moral reasons.

And political. Don't forget the main reason for freedom of speech and press was to ensure the freedom to speak freely and publicly about politics.

I was thinking that as well; limiting the definition of censorship to certain 'reasons' is too narrow and largely irrelevant. But I didn't want to get into a 'semantic argument'. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Doboji
I dont think they should restrict the sale of playboy to adults... just like they shouldnt ban nudity or crude language on public tv.

:shocked: OK, so how about hardcore sex? At any hour? And by 'public TV', do you mean broadcast TV? It's not like anyone can't order XXX pay-per-view already.
 
everything in our environment influences us in some way or another, consciously or subconciously. You would have to be pretty demented in the head already to be influenced to the point of mimicking a violent video game in reality and thinking it was normal.
 
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Doboji
I dont think they should restrict the sale of playboy to adults... just like they shouldnt ban nudity or crude language on public tv.

:shocked: OK, so how about hardcore sex? At any hour? And by 'public TV', do you mean broadcast TV? It's not like anyone can't order XXX pay-per-view already.

There is no reason why sex should still be so taboo. Sex is as much part of life as grocery shopping.
 
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Doboji
I dont think they should restrict the sale of playboy to adults... just like they shouldnt ban nudity or crude language on public tv.

:shocked: OK, so how about hardcore sex? At any hour? And by 'public TV', do you mean broadcast TV? It's not like anyone can't order XXX pay-per-view already.


Sure.... why not. Even hardcore sex on TV. How does that hurt children? The error is in thinking that we can prevent our children from seeing these things. You're far better off talking to them about it, so they understand what they're seeing. And then changing the channel.
 
Originally posted by: gigapet
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Doboji
I dont think they should restrict the sale of playboy to adults... just like they shouldnt ban nudity or crude language on public tv.

:shocked: OK, so how about hardcore sex? At any hour? And by 'public TV', do you mean broadcast TV? It's not like anyone can't order XXX pay-per-view already.

There is no reason why sex should still be so taboo. Sex is as much part of life as grocery shopping.

i actually have sex about 3-4 times more than i grocery shop 😀
 
Originally posted by: Doboji
Originally posted by: Looney
It should be legal to create so long as it doesn't actually use children in it's creation. I think it's sick and disgusting, and would never play it. However the game itself should not be illegal.

And you wouldn't have a problem if your son played this game?

As for your ascertion about violent video games increasing aggression.... I dont see how this is true, as many people in this forum will verify most people here have played significantly larger quantities of violent video games than the rest of the population. Would you then also assume that we are more violent than the rest of the population? I would argue no.

Violent media is so prevalent in society now, that even if somebody doesn't play games to get their fix of it, they'll get it from other sources. And yes, if you play or watch a lot of violent movie, YOU'RE probably more aggressive than you would be if you didn't watch or play them.

You're just not able to see the effect on you, because it is subtle. But if you were to participate in similar research, the effects would be observable. For example, people are placed randomly into 2 groups... one group gets to watch a short movie on a love story, then answer questions on a computer that is SLOW or not working properly. These people will remain relatively calm and just click their way through the test. The second group would watch a violent movie, and then sit infront of the same computer, doing the same tests, with the same problems, and they would be mashing the mouse and keyboard more, cursing, etc.
 
Back
Top