Violent Video Games and Real World Violent Behavior

However, since I downloaded Granny Smith on my Nexus 7 I've been on a pensioner killing spree. I haven't had this problem since Carmageddon came out.

 

I was only inputting what I personally know on the subject of desensitizing and preparing a human to kill another human.
I know it's not entirely effective because when the time comes (usually under massive amounts of stress) It boils down to the soldier making the conscious decision to take another life. This is a lot more complex than it sounds, But as far as training goes getting the basics instilled in the soldier is all that matters. A conflict of morals usually ends up in a soldier freezing up, Putting himself and his team in grave danger and a lot of PTSD cases.
Simulations are all part of the training, If pictures of flowers and fluffy clouds were used it would not have the same result.
Basic training also helps identify people of unstable character, The people you don't want to "share a trench" or the Military deems a "risk".

But that's the Military.
For civilians who are conditioned from day one we need to start looking elsewhere for answers and not the video game.
Keeping violent games at 18 rating is still a good idea in the meantime IMO. Parental responsibility.

Maybe if people understand how they have been conditioned from a young age they might understand how that same conditioning would affect another human being resulting in loss of life.
Could what we are seeing be an unfortunate side affect of Social Engineering?

This is an interesting documentary on the subject, Not defacto by any means, But pick any subject in it for a starting point to do your own research:

Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century (2010)
http://www.themoviedb.org/movie/62381-human-resources-social-engineering-in-the-20th-century

Maybe a separate discussion if it's not a factor involved in the OP.

I never did find Bill Gates.

 

Video games do not make a violent person. I've been playing them for 20 years+ and have never been in trouble in that time. If anything they kept me out of the streets where the trouble was.

Do I ever imagine me buying some Uzis and shooting up the local school cause of a video game no lol.

I have 2 friends in the army both have been to afghan and Iraq both have kills niether regrets them, they did not ever even think about it, when your been ambushed you want to protect your friends. If you don't shoot that gun your going to die in most cases in Iraq and afghan.

They both got medals for bravery for doing it, families all pleased with them.

Most civilians who can kill have the ability to do it with or without video games.

 

I may have been reading rather badly as well mate, it's been one of those days.

 

Jack The Ripper definitely played too much CoD.

 

This the one where they get a guy from CVG to go on the show, then completely ignore him while stating as fact that computer games are the antichrist?

If so, it infuriated me to no end. Can't stand Titchmarsh based purely on that one piece.

Video games and Violence is as valid an argument as saying paintballing and airsoft are likely to make you go on a rampage. That is to say, it's not. Video games are a form of escapism, and if I'm curious what would happen if I attach someone to the wing of a plane before takeoff, I'd imagine it to be preferable that I do this in Just Cause, rather than Gatwick.

F'in Titchmarsh

 

Video games like video nasty's in the 80's are symptoms of disinterested parents who let their kids play/watch things which are not appropriate for their age and use them as cheap child care.

 

I wasn't allowed the Enfield .303 copy "with realistic bolt action" because a kid had pretended to shoot at soldiers from a rooftop in NI, sun behind him putting him into silhouette, and got his head blown off by a very scared but accurate marksman. This was before Pong was available in the UK.

The arguments over violence in videogames are no more or less relevant than the witch hunt against the likes of Judas Priest, Prince etc by the PMRC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxB-ZePpS7E

Gets interesting from about 4 minutes in (though there are some amusing comments before then)

 

On topic

 

Lol it's all so silly. I also heard on good authority that Hitler was seriously addicted to Supreme Commander 2. Apparently his graphics card overheated in the middle of a big serious game, and it made more than just his PC unstable. He waited weeks for the replacement graphics card to arrive and after fitting it, he couldn't wait to get on multiplayer again. But his first game back, he got totally destroyed by a 13 year old Jewish kid who laughed and called him a n00b cake. And the rest is history.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-01-shooters-how-video-games-fund-arms-manufacturers

Its an interesting take. One that I think many people dont realize.

I'll never say that video games are a direct cause. But to say that it doesn't affect at all would be disingenuous.

 

Thanks for the link Elton, that was a really good article..

 

You know, I'll offer a take from a small-time developer and published novelist (yes, I'm both, though both stalled with the passing of my son.)

I really like the statement about mature fiction and drawing the line between the mature and the immature. There is a lot of violence in my stories, a lot of death, suffering and pain. Guns do get used, even if they normally have no analogue in the real world. You pull the trigger, parts fall off your adversary or holes appear in them, they die. And I portray it as a simple issue that in conflict, people will die. And people will find the most efficient and gratuitous ways to kill (like my Damocles satellite-WMD with no explosives, chemical, biological or nuclear agents. A pure kinetic-kill weapon.) And I write stories that are not aimed at children. This is my point. I don't expect kids to be able to follow ANY of what's going on. Only adults, and generally smart ones, are my targeted audience, even after the introduction of the kittychicken. My wife loves that one-which is why it's in. not to make it more palatable to kids. And there's where I differe in the video game companies-I'm not marketing to kids at all. In fact, I'm not really marketing. If you like the genre, you normally can find the works, otherwise they stay in their corner where they're happy.

I understand the power of the written word, and of the good game developer. And I understand it is a dangerous power, and so I try my best to be responsible with it (such as careful marketing, portrayal of the aftereffects of war, and a clear sense of consequence for actions. Too often, we don't get a clear sense of real consequences-and I think that's where things start to get ugly.

 

Kittychicken? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

http://fataloptimization.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/chapter-fifty-six-fur-feathers-and-terra-firma

 

excellent article @elton. quite informative and thought-provoking. rep for posting. this really stood out:

"Gun companies marketing to young players is a symptom, not the problem. It's more systemically ingrained in our culture. I think to only worry about guns' effects on people is to ignore the real problems, because these are just far more difficult to solve. They involve more than just getting rid of the gun culture in America."

@kayinblack part of the problem seems to be that nobody wants to accept responsibility for being complicit. and I'm very sorry to hear of your loss.

 

Of course no one wants to. Nobody wants to say: my products may have colluded with assault rifle manufacturers and therefore may have been influential in influencing parts of my customers. It's not only an admission of guilt, but it places the impetus of the blame on someone.

As I said before, those who are adamant about video games having no effect on gun sales or the use of guns would be rather disingenuous. The mere fact that we are allowing children to freely peruse these games says a lot about the games industry. That it's childishly immature and that as a body, no one takes it seriously enough as a medium.

In other words, unlike most other mediums, very few people are willing to ask the tough questions.

 

That's the lame thing about it, one side think gaming is the devil, the other side play games and say it's totally harmless and everyone should stfu.

Not enough people are in the middle and even fewer of those are the ones who would actually investigate it properly. For example I think its obvious that violent games would desensitise people somewhat. If you are constantly playing games with assault rifles and stuff, and constantly shooting people at close range and watching blood splat etc.. then you surely can't experience the same horror if you saw that happen in real life. And it no doubt makes some people more fascinated in violent stuff too, like guns and maybe they would go to gun clubs and try things they have experienced in the game.

But there is a big distinct line between being desensitised by violent games and fascinated by their subject matter, and getting your own gun and going out and shooting someone for real and then blowing your own brains out. And picking on games leaves so many other violent things unquestioned too. I think it would be interesting and probably useful to research the relationships and study all this stuff, but when the media only ever do stupid **** like saying violent games breed violent people, it makes me just lose all interest in the whole thing. That daily mail mentality is the ultimate turn off.