| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SoftRevolution
   |
Posted - 2007.10.09 12:38:00 -
[1]
I think buying anyone the Fight Club game would probably encourage violent behaviour on their part, towards you.
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.09 13:06:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Velsharoon
Thing is children arent responsible, its the parents.
This.
It is up to parents to deal with what their children are exposed to. Will your kid go to a friend's house and play Manhunt or GTA? Probably but as a parent you can still certainly limit their exposure. You can also discuss with the friend's parents that you do not want your kid playing certain things.
And to some extent I find these studies to be dodgy. Certainly some kids get hyper after playing and tend to rough house more. But then do they go out and poleaxe their buddy on the playground? Barring one or two cases no.
You can't just leave it up to the parents to police. People are stupid. People work long hours. Some people shouldn't be allowed dogs, let alone children. There's also the question of whether this represents some wider societal ill.
I'm not absolving parents of all responsibility here, just saying I can see why they would want some sort of enquiry.
A study that just measures the immediate effect isn't a very well designed study.
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.09 14:30:00 -
[3]
I think you might have lost the "Nanny State" argument the day you were born in the UK.
An enquiry isn't the same thing as legislating.
If it can be shown that there is a causal link between playing violent games would you really have them not do anything about it?
The current evidence on the subject is so confused I'd actually welcome a well run study with more conclusive trustworthy results because the current information just encourages waffle and bull****. That there is currently a question says to me a study is needed.
Personally I don't find either the "Violent computer games are a moral outrage and are corrupting our youth" or the "Censorship is wrong. This stuff is up to parents. I gamed for years and there is nothing wrong with me." default partisan positions satisfactory. Not without better information at least.
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.09 15:13:00 -
[4]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 09/10/2007 15:15:17
Quote:
All those numbers are already out there to be read. If you come back with clear evidence that yeah, violence has gone up, fights occur more and they all track with the release of video games I think you have a strong case. There are many factors involved in what brings someone to violence but this would at least be strongly suggestive and demand a closer look.
Er... by that token you could justify studies into whether sugar free soft drinks or Channel 5 have caused a decrease in violent crime. You're not showing anything.
Actually I'm just having a look at this and some of the graphs for violent crime go up! Oh my. Ban this sick death game now.
What is interesting is that some of the existing studies appear to show or at least imply some sort of causal link between violent games and aggression in children. On the other hand some of them show no link whatsoever. Some of them show a decrease in prosocial behaviour but no increase in violent behaviour. So. Which is it? Why isn't that something worth looking into? I'm a game (ugh. Did I just identify pretending to fly spaceships around as a lifestyle choice?) and I think this needs answering.
To my mind either there is no problem and a study will find this and then the "facts" are on our side or there is a problem and it's then up to the tools we voted in to decide what if any response is needed.
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.09 17:59:00 -
[5]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 09/10/2007 18:04:21
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: SoftRevolution
Er... by that token you could justify studies into whether sugar free soft drinks or Channel 5 have caused a decrease in violent crime.
No, not really. Certainly you need to be very careful of the causal relationships. Sugar free soft drinks have been around longer than video games. So has Channel 5. If you look at the statistics and see a trend upward when a game comes out that is suggestive. It may not be the whole answer but merits a closer look.
It may well be you need to be more granular as well. Looking at national stats is fine but also look at school reports of violence. Maybe a playground brawl not worthy of involving the police but the schools will track that. Do you see a trend up there? More notably do you see spikes in the data that correlate to when certain games like GTA or Manhunter were released?
If there is no blip in the stats then where is this supposed awful violence? That some moron here or there brains his little brother tells you nothing and certainly is not something to merit legislation. It is an aberration. If there is a societal impact the stats should show it.
Yeah. Precisely. "No, not really". It is the causal relationships you need to look at.
I picked relatively recent events (dunno how long you've had Channel 5  ) as an example of how charting figures for crime or school violence against arbitrary dates doesn't show you a whole lot.
I guess you could show that there was no correlation between the release of manhunt and a large spike in recorded classroom or schoolyard violence. That isn't the same thing as showing that there is no ill effect since as you say it's the causal relationship you're interested in.
Ugh. Manhunt was a terrible computer game. I hope somebody puts a plastic bag over the lead designers face for making ****ty, ****ty games and selling them on the back of media furore.
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.10 06:41:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: SoftRevolution
I picked relatively recent events (dunno how long you've had Channel 5 )
Channel 5 where I am is NBC in Chicago and it has been here as long as I have been alive (longer than I care to admit).
Ah, my apologies then.
In Britain we had four terrestrial channels up until the mid-90's.
I assumed you were a Brit.
|
| |
|