babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » What's good about violent video games?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: What's good about violent video games?
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 07 March 2004 07:52 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I really want to know.
I know what's bad about them and i know why some governments want to restrict or ban (and a few actually have) certain games.
What i don't fully understand is why there is such a large market.

So....
Who likes violent games?
Who likes violent movies?
WHY?
Do you approve of movies but not games, or the other way around?
WHY?


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 07 March 2004 11:24 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What's good about violent video games?

Nothing.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 March 2004 02:03 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As my father might say, "Who the hell wants to pay money to get strapped into a roller coaster and jostled around until they're scared out of their wits?".

It's an adrenaline thing. Fear response, but without the actual danger, yadda yadda yadda.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 287

posted 08 March 2004 04:02 AM      Profile for Marc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Who likes violent games?
Who likes violent movies?
WHY?
Do you approve of movies but not games, or the other way around?
WHY?
I like movies that have violence in them but not necessary violent movies. If the only thing that defines a movie is its violence (Seagal movies, Van Damme movies, etc)I am not interested. However, violence will never deter me from seeing a good movie.

When I was a kid I really liked Mortal Kombat which had a lot of violence (if you knew the "Finish Him" special codes)...I don't play many games like that any more because I am just not that interested in fighting games.


From: Calgary, AB | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 08 March 2004 10:39 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But, arguably, classic martial arts films are based solely around the violence, with the plot just forming a tenuous link between fight sequences. I find that acceptable, and enjoy those sorts of movies very much.

For me it's more if the violence is just added because it's considered 'necessary', like 'it's necessary for the bus to blow up and we see amputated limbs bouncing off the camera lens, in order to appeal to the 18-24 male demographic'. Then I don't spend my money. So Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon yes, Swordfish no. (or something like that)

As for video games, I play violent first-person shooters, but only if there's a plot. So Deus Ex, System Shock 2 and Half-Life, but not, er, ah, Redneck Rampage or Unreal Tournament (heck, I never deathmatch anyway).


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 08 March 2004 12:22 PM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They are enjoyable. Like sex without the goal of conception. And eating red meat.
Why isnt 'becuase it is enjoyable' a good enough answer any more?

[ 08 March 2004: Message edited by: Tackaberry ]


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 08 March 2004 09:52 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't play first person shooters very often anymore. Maybe it's because I'm a little more mature than I was when I first started playing them but I don't find them appealing anymore. I will play doom once in awhile but the graphics are so cheesy and the AI is so primitive that it isn't as disturbing as something like grand theft auto. When you actually start reading about wars, your less anxious to play soldier.
People are to quick to blame television and video games for all our social problems. The trenchcoat mafia didn't go on a shooting spree simply because they played doom, they went on a shooting spree because of a whole raft of external and internal influences. To blame everything those boys did on id software and Marilyn Manson is ridiculous. I watch violent TV and have played violent videogames, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go into Kmart with a hunting rifle and start murdering people.
Does anyone remember the fuss that was kicked up when D&D came out in the 80s?
Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 08 March 2004 10:04 PM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Define "violent" for me, and I'll let you know.
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 09 March 2004 12:35 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Define violent. For the purposes of this discussion: any deliberate act on the part of one entity which causes bodily harm to another entity.
Murder, rape, assault, maiming, battery, kicking, cutting, crucifiction, stabbing, strangling, burning, evisceration, impalement, decapitation, shooting, drowning, defenestration, entombment, explosion and running over with a snowmobile... i'm sure we can all think of more examples.
quote:
Why isnt 'becuase it is enjoyable' a good enough answer any more?

That's a fine answer. But it doesn't get us closer to understanding our own motivations or the devices whereby we might be manipulated, or how an experience changes and influences us... or much of anything, really.
quote:
People are to quick to blame television and video games for all our social problems.

I certainly haven't said that all - or any - of a society's problems derive from its choice of entertainments. Rather, i might tentatively suggest that a society's entertainments reflect its values and aspirations.

[ 09 March 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 09 March 2004 09:17 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I certainly haven't said that all - or any - of a society's problems derive from its choice of entertainments. Rather, i might tentatively suggest that a society's entertainments reflect its values and aspirations.

Which to me calls forth the question of whether banning or restricting those entertainments will change those values and aspirations, or just paper over them?

Added: here's some sales figures for 2003, divided between console and computer sales, and by game type:

Click!


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 09 March 2004 09:40 AM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But it doesn't get us closer to understanding our own motivations or the devices whereby we might be manipulated, or how an experience changes and influences us

you answer seems to assume that their must be some deeper motivation or manipulation to form like or enjoyabble experiences.

I disagree. Soem things are enjoyable in and of themselves. Genetic or chemical responses perhaps. Just like sex.


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 March 2004 10:12 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To see where this whole line of thinking goes wrong, let's play "What's good about Country and Western music?". Fans of the genre can do their best to defend the music they enjoy, while those of us with a predisposition to disliking it regardless, can sit here clucking our tongues.

And of course if nobody can adequately convince me that there's something good about C + W, then we'll have to move on to talks of banning it. Or at least keeping it out of the hands of the children!


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 09 March 2004 10:46 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aRoused:
Which to me calls forth the question of whether banning or restricting those entertainments will change those values and aspirations, or just paper over them?

I don't know. If 'papering over' means lying about it; pretending to believe in one principle while actually supporting its opposite - that's done by governments all the time, and it makes the citizens a little bit crazy.

What does change a society's values? Perhaps teaching the next generation less of one thing and more of another is a start. Maybe redocarating the baby's room is a start. Maybe examining our own tastes and desires is a start. Obviously, it's not going to happen in one year; probably, it wouldn't show measurable results for a decade.
And maybe nothing will change, no matter what we decide. Maybe nothing should change because what we have now is the best a society can be.

quote:
Soem things are enjoyable in and of themselves. Genetic or chemical responses perhaps. Just like sex.

True. I have already accepted your answer. The unexamined life is probably more worth living.
I just don't believe it's the only possible answer for eveyone.

I generally dislike any restrictrion of liberty, particularly of thought, speech and association. On the other hand, i realize that every society must set some limits on the freedom of individuals. I haven't seen anyone on this forum advocate legalizing armed robbery, infanticide or rape. Indeed, i haven't come across too many protests agains hate-speech laws (about which i myself have some reservations).
So, it seems decisions do need to be made as to where one's freedom ends and another's nose begins, in all areas of life.
Entertainment is simply one area that has recently come under scrutiny. That's already happened; i'm not causing it.

[ 09 March 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 09 March 2004 11:04 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Someone loaded "Duke Nukem" in our computer at work years ago, and I remember playing it to pass the time. I had the cheat codes. I wouldn't have had the patience to play it otherwise.

It's pretty twisted, "Duke Nukem". Semi Nude women hanging in Alien guck in what is some 14 year old boy's wet bondage dream scenario. And if you shoot them by accident, there's no consequence in the game. In one spot, you actually have to shoot one of these innocent victims if you want the med kit behind her.

I don't worry so much about the people who play the game as much as I worry about the people who concieved it.

But, if I had a twelve year old son, would I have let him play it? Probably not. Adults can put these kinds of things in context (well, most anyway) but I wonder how a mind not exposed to a lot of life experience puts this kind of stuff in context.

My daughters play a lot of video games, but few have any violence. They like strategy and riddle type games, or obsesive compulsive games like animal crossing and that one about farming-- forget the name.

Would I let them play violent games? Maybe. I have confidence in their ability to distinguish between play and reality.

It's this ability which is key, and that's what has to be taught kids, along with the ability to put things in context.

I don't think the two kids who went on a rampage in Columbine had either ability.

And, I might add, those who think that violent games or movies should be banned because we're all so easily influenced and will become violent, don't seem to understand the difference between play and reality, either.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 March 2004 11:16 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I haven't seen anyone on this forum advocate legalizing armed robbery, infanticide or rape.

But I'm sure most babblers would defend the right of someone to write a book, author a play, or make a movie featuring any of these. Because those are pretend. As are video games.

I've always said, I'll happily participate in bowdlerlizing the world, so long as we start with the Bible. All that slaying and smiting and begatting can't be good for our kids. And the book of revelations appears in the fantasies of killers more often than Mortal Kombat by a long shot. If we're going to start there, let's do it.
Next will be gangsta rap. No more about "popping a cap" in anyone's ass. No more "Glock" worship. No more "bitches", "ho's" or "baby mamas" will be a nice side effect of this. No loss there.

Followed by Shakespeare (didja see the way Brutus shanked Caesar, prison style? And isn't talking to a skull just a wee bit gory?)

Then all Quentin Tarantino movies. Tarantino will be forced to give any ill-gotten gains from his movies to charity. He'll be permitted to return to the director's chair only if he agrees to make "My Dinner With Andre II".

Following this, we'll need to abolish, or change, many sports. Hockey, if it wishes to survive, will need to become a co-operative sport in which all of the players skate around the ice in complicated patterns, passing the puck around. Like the Harlem Globetrotters on skates. Football will be replaced with a barefoot guy kicking the ball and another guy catching it, for two hours. Baseball and golf, being essentially harmless, can stay.

Then Country and Western music. Not that C + W is violent, but what would be the good of a witch hunt if I couldn't use it to ban things I just don't care for?

Then we go after video games.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 09 March 2004 11:23 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"A Clockwork Orange", "Pulp Fiction" and "Resivoir Dogs" would have to take a back seat to Willy Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus", perhaps the most violent work I've ever seen.

On TVO, no less.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 09 March 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Someone loaded "Duke Nukem" in our computer at work years ago, and I remember playing it to pass the time. I had the cheat codes. I wouldn't have had the patience to play it otherwise.

It's pretty twisted, "Duke Nukem". Semi Nude women hanging in Alien guck in what is some 14 year old boy's wet bondage dream scenario.


As I recall, the strippers actually turned out to be aliens, which is why you had to shoot them. I have no similar excuse for my many Grand Theft Auto crimes, however.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 09 March 2004 02:48 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
To see where this whole line of thinking goes wrong, let's play "What's good about Country and Western music?". Fans of the genre can do their best to defend the music they enjoy, while those of us with a predisposition to disliking it regardless, can sit here clucking our tongues.

And of course if nobody can adequately convince me that there's something good about C + W, then we'll have to move on to talks of banning it. Or at least keeping it out of the hands of the children!



Mr. Magoo, you talk as if there's something wrong with banning Country & Western music!


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 09 March 2004 09:04 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mr. Magoo, you talk as if somebody wanted to ban something.
Asking why you like something is not the same as saying you can't have it. A reasonable answer may allow us to understand why banning it is a bad idea.

In fact, you gave about the only coherent answer. "The adrenalin thing." The survival value of a dissociated, artificially-induced adrenalin rush isn't entirely clear, but every culture seems to make it available in some form, so i'd guess people have always valued it - perhaps even needed it. If that's so, banning one method of achieving it will only force people to find another method.
Then, there is sublimation and catharsis, both useful psychological devices. There is a limit to how much of either an individual requires, and i'd want to question whether one nation, era or culture needs more than another, and if so why.

These are only questions - not accusations.

[ 10 March 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 09 March 2004 11:07 PM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Doug is right about Duke Nukem. If you shot the prostitutes or strippers their alien henchmen multiplied to get your toned and tanned ass. If you shot the strippers in the strip club, those pig/cops came at you.

Conversely, you can pound a stripper to death with a golf club, take all her earnings and hop into your viper in Vice City. No repercussions.

Simulated violence can never be related to real violence. When I shoot at aliens or hookers, essentially I'm pressing a button which launches pixels at other pixels. If I kill an online competitor, the worst that happens is an ego bruising. A game's representation of reality (and I'm including war games like Medal of Honor and SOCOM here too) is quite removed from actual reality. Therefore, there is a giant disconnect in what I'm capable of in a video game, and in reality.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 10 March 2004 11:22 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I seem to remember that rationalization for getting you to shoot scantilly clad and oft times helpless females.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think a game like that will make a person of sound mind go out and shoot people, or even twist them up psychologically.

For example, I may have been pissed off at the game makers for not giving "Duke" the option of being able to tickle the scantilly clad females bound up in Alien guck, but I brought that twist with me; the game didn't put it there.


Did you know "Duke Nukem" was banned in Brazil? Seems a guy walked into a movie theater with a shotgun, and started shooting at people-- and mirrors. Just like in level one.

Seems he was a Duke fan.

And a wacko. Probably the wacko part was always there..........


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loony Bin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4996

posted 10 March 2004 11:48 AM      Profile for Loony Bin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have a serious problem with anything that makes a person think it's funny to shoot at women, especially vulnerable or disempowered women (as in, naked, prostitutes, strippers...).

I think it's pretty sick. I think that people who enjoy it are probably also a little sick. I really do think it's bad for a person's sense of reality and human compassion to play games like this.

I would support a ban on games like this, I think. And yes, I've thought about the thin edge of the wedge and the censorship dilemma etc. Nonetheless, I think these kind of games, and the mentality behind their "humour" and "fun" is a plague on the real world, where women are beaten and killed all the time by guys who think they're tougher than tough, or who just don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

Call me reactionary if you like. Just imagine how things might be different in the world if murder and degradation weren't entertainment...

[ 10 March 2004: Message edited by: Lizard Breath ]


From: solitary confinement | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 10 March 2004 12:03 PM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I guess I like "violent" video games. All video games other than tetris and pong are violent by that definition.

Super Mario shoots fireballs at gumbas and kills them. PacMan EATS ghosts after he weakens and chases them. All of the RPG fantasy games use magic and weapons to defeat enemies such as orcs, ghouls, and evil humans. Spyro the dragon blows flames at his enemies and eats sheep to keep his health metre up.

Those are the games that I like. I don't consider myself a violent person. What I'm "killing" on the screen isn't real, they're almost always a fictional creature, not a human being, and they are always the "bad guys", I'm the "good guy" in the game. I'm working on the good team. I'm "scared" because they will get me first if I don't move quickly enough to jump on their heads, bowl them over, or zap them with ball lightning. It's exciting to have to learn the moves and execute them quickly to defeat the enemy before it "kills" me.

It's challenging and interesting. The most violent games I play (rpgs) have really neat story lines, right now I'm a Necromancer working to rid the town of Baldur's Gate of an evil force bent on enslaving the entire town's population - It's UP TO ME to save them from this doom.

I personally don't like first person shooting games. Too bloody, too repetitive, too many guns, too real-to-life, too many humans, etc.

I personally cannot understand the appeal of games like Grand Theft Auto, and the new one that is out. I've read the "scenarios" in the game, and it does bother me. The least it should get is a restricted label. I don't think banning them works, but, if there were one to be banned, it would be a game like that.


From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 March 2004 12:09 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just imagine how things might be different in the world if murder and degradation weren't entertainment.

Or hockey players fracturing each other's spines.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 10 March 2004 03:36 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But banning something Liz doesn't solve the real problem. In fact it only hides it and makes it worse.

The problem is kids being raised without a firm grounding in the difference between fantasy and reality and the inability to process reality and put it into context.

Heck, adults are having a hard time with it. We are afraid of the wrong things because our emotional reactions can be played for profit in the market place. News Media being the most visible and guilty party on that front.

If we ban those games, we set up and lend credence to the misgynist who says "Stanely Kubrick made rape look cool and fun, I'm innocent! Blame Kubrick!"

And that's crap.

When people know they are accountable for their actions, and there will be consequences for their actions, then they fall back on the part of the brain that they've let go limp: the part that recognizes and processes reality.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 March 2004 04:18 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As I've suggested before, all we need to do to turn this alarming trend around 180o is to release a video game called "Good Student 3-D", in which the character runs around completing his homework, reading books, working at a part-time job to earn bonus points or extra "lives", and volunteering at a virtual retirement home.

Kids, who apparently have to replicate anything they see on CRTs of any kind, will soon have no choice but to "copy-cat" this kind of behaviour, and voila! A nation of honour students who think they're the ones pulling something over on us!

The possibilities are endless, too. Future game cartridges could include "Tom Clancy's 'Taking out the Garbage'", "Dishwasher X-treme", or "Super Mario Writes Thank-you Notes For All Those Nice Birthday Gifts".

I can't believe nobody thought of this before now.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 March 2004 04:27 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or hockey players fracturing each other's spines.

Bollocks.

Name one person who thinks this is either a good idea or entertaining.

The hockey world has been universal in its condemnation of Bertuzzi's attack. Even your link calls it "A Dark Moment for Hockey."

quote:
Bertuzzi, a Sudbury native who in October signed a four-year, $27.8 million (U.S.) contract extension, is the second NHL player in the past four years to be investigated by police for an on-ice incident at Vancouver's General Motors Place.

Maybe the rink is the problem. Stuff like this never happened in the Pacific Coliseum.


quote:
If we ban those games, we set up and lend credence to the misgynist who says "Stanely Kubrick made rape look cool and fun, I'm innocent! Blame Kubrick!"

Is this a similar mentality as that held by those who blame Martha Stewart for their unhappiness or feelings of inadequacy?

[ 10 March 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 March 2004 04:58 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lip service. When he's tossed out of the game, for good, I'll buy it.

Meanwhile hockey fans everywhere will continue to voice their love of a good clean passing and stickhandling game out of one side of their mouth, while yelling "C'mon you pussy! Punch him! PUNCH HIM!" out of the other.

The NHL could have instituted a zero tolerance rule for unnecessary violence years ago, but they know that if they did, they'd lose fans by the drove. And ban a popular player? Why that'd be like flushing money down the toilet! Not to mention the thousands of angry letters and the hundreds of irate AM radio callers!

If this guy is thrown out of the league, stripped of his exorbitant millionaire's salary, and charged with assault causing bodily harm, then I'll return to this thread and publicly eat crow.

On the other hand, if the league wrings its hands earnestly, fines him 0.002% of his $40M CDN salary, and suspends him for a few games so he can sit at home and spend some of it.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 10 March 2004 07:28 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mr. Magoo, you talk as if somebody wanted to ban something.
Asking why you like something is not the same as saying you can't have it. A reasonable answer may allow us to understand why banning it is a bad idea.
In fact, you gave about the only coherent answer. "The adrenalin thing." The survival value of a dissociated, artificially-induced adrenalin rush isn't entirely clear, but every culture seems to make it available in some form, so i'd guess people have always valued it - perhaps even needed it. If that's so, banning one method of achieving it will only force people to find another method.
Then, there is sublimation and catharsis, both useful psychological devices. There is a limit to how much of either an individual requires, and i'd want to question whether one nation, era or culture needs more than another, and if so why.

These are only questions - not accusations.


Sorry, I didn't quite understand what you're intentions were..:.
I enjoyed playing doom because it was one of the only games (at the time, anyway) that allowed me to shoot man eating demons with a bazooka. It was certainly a novel experience.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 March 2004 09:25 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I dunno, Magoo, you sound like you have a problem with hockey in general, and not just this incident.

quote:
If this guy is thrown out of the league, stripped of his exorbitant millionaire's salary, and charged with assault causing bodily harm, then I'll return to this thread and publicly eat crow.

I'm no lawyer. but I'm pretty sure referees aren't allowed to hand out jail sentences.

And to be honest, you can eat fried chicken for all I care.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 10 March 2004 09:55 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay.
We started with people enjoying pretend-violence
- against monsters or aliens, but not humans
- against humans, but only bad ones
- against humans, but not well-dressed ones
and who consider it important to distinguish fantasy from reality and to teach one's children to do likewise.

Now, we seem to have added people (not necessarily among those present) who enjoy seeing violence in sports (or maybe only hockey) which is both real and against humans with clothes on. But there should be some legal limits on the extent of this violence.
Is that right?


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 10 March 2004 10:24 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suspect that watching violence and participating in fantasy violence (video games) gives some of us a sense of empowerment that's pleasurable. Generally speaking, we're a very violent species, so there has to be something we get out of it, some kind of high, or pleasure, or reassurance or feeling of control.
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 March 2004 10:31 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you Rebecca, for those thoughtful intelligent comments.

I've always said that hockey gave a harmless release to all that primal violence that I had welled up inside.

I dunno about video games. They make my thumbs sore.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2004 12:26 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I dunno, Magoo, you sound like you have a problem with hockey in general, and not just this incident.

I just get tired of the doublespeak. Fans go on and on about the quality of the game, but as soon as anyone makes any noise about cracking down on violence — and thereby making more room for the game fans say they love — the fans balk.

Admit it: if the NHL ever made an aggressive, zero tolerance policy with regard to excessive violence (and I'm not talking about a clean check here, but fights, high-sticking, brawls, etc.) then hockey would become the 17th sport, somewhere between lacrosse and Jai-alai.

quote:
I'm no lawyer. but I'm pretty sure referees aren't allowed to hand out jail sentences.

Uh, I'm not expecting the ref to. I'm expecting the police to. What? You thought an ice rink was international waters, and Canadian laws don't apply there?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 11 March 2004 12:36 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rebecca West:
I suspect that watching violence and participating in fantasy violence (video games) gives some of us a sense of empowerment that's pleasurable. Generally speaking, we're a very violent species, so there has to be something we get out of it, some kind of high, or pleasure, or reassurance or feeling of control.

I suspect you've hit a very big nail on the head.
quote:
Mr.Magoo:
As I've suggested before, all we need to do to turn this alarming trend around 180o is to release a video game called "Good Student 3-D", in which the character runs around completing his homework, reading books, working at a part-time job to earn bonus points or extra "lives", and volunteering at a virtual retirement home.

Sarcastic, but not altogether inaccurate. This game sounds dull and you expect nobody to buy it. Yet, Myst sold pretty well, even though it was all brain-work and no shooting. How about a game in which the protagonist is a young rebel who has to outwit the evil agrigiant, avoid starvation and elude capture by a corrupt militaristic regime ... ?

Thing is, a lot of youngsters playing the goriest video games are good students. They will complete their assignments and get degrees and spend the best part of their lives as corporate drones. While uneducated thugs in Banania, who don't even own a gamecube ferchrissakes, get to have all the fun of shooting real people, they will be stuck in a cubicle, fantasizing.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 March 2004 01:00 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Uh, I'm not expecting the ref to. I'm expecting the police to. What? You thought an ice rink was international waters, and Canadian laws don't apply there?

Sometimes you're too cute for your own arguments.

Why criticize hockey for something which is clearly out of the jurisdiction of any sports organization? You said you'd eat crow if this guy were charged. That isn't the NHL's resposibility.

quote:
Admit it: if the NHL ever made an aggressive, zero tolerance policy with regard to excessive violence (and I'm not talking about a clean check here, but fights, high-sticking, brawls, etc.) then hockey would become the 17th sport, somewhere between lacrosse and Jai-alai.

I don't care if the NHL were the "17th sport." It's somewhere in the 30s, behind bowling and car racing, in the US anyway. I'd be happy if the NHL shrunk only to places where hockey could be played outdoors.

Hockey isn't like Duke Nukem, or whatever sport you play. High sticks happen, even in Europe, believe it or not. Car accidents happen too, but careless drivers who get in fenderbenders don't have their licences suspended for life.

Fights and brawls happen too. I've been in them and I never got close to the NHL. That's ice hockey.

I don't have much patience for people who don't know a puck from a pizza pontificating on how the game should be played.

Bertuzzi was wrong. Everybody knows it, and we're all shocked by his act because what he did is not typical of the way the game is supposed to be played.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 11 March 2004 01:05 AM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Violent video games don't interest me. Neither do violent movies. EXCEPT that I have watched the James Bond movies. It seems to me that this is a violence that I can not take seriously. Much like the Bugs bunny and Road runner group.

There seems to be a difference, at least to me.

The bloody comic books that I read as a child were pretty violent, Superman, Batman and group. There was no way that I took that seriously except there were the good guys and the bad guys.

The Westerns that I watched were also violent. The Indians were not the winners. Somehow, or maybe this is just me I never took this very seriously. I was far more interested in all the horses than the blazing guns.

I think I would have to ask children if the video games they play make them want to be mean to their peers? Or have violent impulses. It's late and I think I am not clear. Oh well maybe tomorrow.


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 11 March 2004 01:54 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, i've been asking adults - and they don't seem to know why they like what they like or how it effects them, if it does. I doubt children are more self-aware and articulate.
However, you can see how children are influenced by what they see, because they react immediately. Superman fans tie a towel around their necks and fly around the room; junior Batmen whack the couch and make *biff*, *crunch*, *kerblooey* sound effects; little lone rangers go 'bang bang' and blow on their finger.
And i'm NOT saying that's bad. Kids are supposed to play out their fantasies. Probably, adults need to, as well.

(PS - Hi)


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Phillips
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3317

posted 11 March 2004 04:53 AM      Profile for Matt Phillips     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Theres a game I recently purchased called "Republic, The Revolution" where you have to over throw the government of a eastern europen government using the means at your disposal. After filling out a questionaire at the begining, which questions your political, social, and moral beliefs, you are giving a path to follow, and eventually you can become the leader of this country.

Some use crime, others military coup, elections, speaking, those kinda things. I'm just starting to get into it, but it looks like an amazing game, with very little violence involved.

I admit, I love violent games, but that is just part of my passion for all types of video games. A particular guilty passion of mine is, Big Buck Hunter, a coin-op hunting game, where you fire a simulated shot gun at Buck's etc. I feel horible about shooting simulated animals, but as I will never actually go hunting, this game provides quite a decent stress relief from my day, plus its great when your drunk and can't shoot at anything.

anyways, just my 2cents

Matt


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 11 March 2004 11:08 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Since when did this thread become about hockey? Is there some reason you need to shift the argument Magoo? Does lipping off about hockey fans and hockey fights make it easier for you to attempt to manipulate babblers into giving you the answers you require to yell "Ah ha!".

As for being tired of double-speak, well, pot you just called yourself kettle. Are you having an identity crisis?

10 minute major to Magoo for being a manipulative pain in the arse and bogging down thread after thread with his "why, why, why schtick".


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2004 11:25 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Car accidents happen too, but careless drivers who get in fenderbenders don't have their licences suspended for life.

If you ram someone intentionally, I think you should lose your licence for life.

quote:
Since when did this thread become about hockey? Is there some reason you need to shift the argument Magoo? Does lipping off about hockey fans
and hockey fights make it easier for you to attempt to manipulate babblers into giving you the answers you require to yell "Ah ha!".

LOL! Sorry. Did I ruin a thread that you weren't even a participant in? Sorry to have inconvenienced you.

Any chance you're just sulky because I'm criticizing a sport that you like?

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 11 March 2004 11:55 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In a mature, rational society, with an understanding and appreciation for human nature, vicarious violence would be recognized and celebrated for what it is - catharsis.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Loony Bin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4996

posted 11 March 2004 12:12 PM      Profile for Loony Bin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think I would have to ask children if the video games they play make them want to be mean to their peers? Or have violent impulses.

I used to babysit a little kid who played nintendo games all the time, starting from the time he could master the hand-eye coordination required for even middling success (ie. age 3 or so). He was playing games like Donkey Kong and Mariokart, which are not particularly violent, and even still, he would have nightmares about people stealing his bananas etc. He knew that the gorilla in the game wasn't a real one. He knew they weren't real bananas or real coins he was picking up, and he still had nightmares about it.

Which is to say that teaching your kids that the stuff they see on tv or play on their gamecube is not real doesn't really solve the problem. Even if they know it's fake, and that those are actors, or pixels or whatever, they're still seeing the gore, still witnessing the callous disregard for human life (or any kind), and still being exposed to the violence. Once it's in their heads, you can't take it out, and you can't control what or how they think about it, or how it influences their feelings and actions. No matter how much you tell them that the stuff they play in the games or see in the movies is not okay in the real world.

Same goes for us grown-ups too, y'know. Yeah sure, we like to think we're capable of the cognitive gymnastics required to filter the real from the fictional, but if ye ask me, we don't have that much control over it at all. Once we expose ourselves to that kind of violence, it's in our psyches for good, and it'll get woven into our thoughts and actions in ways that we don't even recognize.


From: solitary confinement | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 11 March 2004 12:21 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
LOL! Sorry. Did I ruin a thread that you weren't even a participant in? Sorry to have inconvenienced you.

Magoo, your antics are the reason many good threads become too annoying to particpate in. If I wanted to explain things over and over, from 10 different angles for fun, I'd have a three year old.

quote:
Any chance you're just sulky because I'm criticizing a sport that you like?

No chance whatsoever, I'd have to value your opinion.

So you realized you were engaging in thread drift.

Too bad you don't have the class to admit it, instead you accused me of sulking.

quote:
Which is to say that teaching your kids that the stuff they see on tv or play on their gamecube is not real doesn't really solve the problem.

I never thought of it from that angle. I think your whole post solidifies some of my feelings about violent video games. And how the damage they can do sneaks in without people knowing. For the record we have no game system at home and very few games for the Mac. We have Sims, and civilization building game and I have the game Black & White, were you can rule by being benevoltent or cruel. I can't bring myself to be cruel. I will never grasp why beating a prostitute for fun in a game is valuable. Go beat up an alien but don't justify beating a hooker. There is nothing heroic in that and many of these games enforce stereotypes of heroic actions.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2004 12:30 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Too bad you don't have the class to admit it, instead you accused me of sulking.

No, I accused you of being sulky because you obviously joined onto this thread just to chasitize me, and to accuse me of thread drift. Which was ironic, since at that point you hadn't said anything at all about video games.

quote:
Magoo, your antics are the reason many good threads become too annoying to particpate in. If I wanted to explain things over and over, from 10
different angles for fun, I'd have a three year old.

Then by all means skip over my posts. They're nicely labelled with my name on them, just over there to the left a little. See? If you can't, or won't do that, then you are a three year old.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 11 March 2004 01:06 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 11 March 2004 03:38 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyBrogan:
In a mature, rational society, with an understanding and appreciation for human nature, vicarious violence would be recognized and celebrated for what it is - catharsis.

Yes, of course. Catharsis of what? Presumably of repressed emotion. The frustrations of living by civilized rules of behaviour and manners need to be purged once in a while.
Is this a mature, rational society?
How much repressed feeling do we have? How much are we bound by formal etiquette? How much purging do we need? If a little is good, is a lot really better? Or are we going overboard on the cathartic entertainments? Emotional bulimia?

The purging of repressed violence in safe play is essential to a child's mental health. But this need is not constant from age 0 to 18; different stages of development require different amounts and kinds of catharsis. I would even suggest that we have the ratings upside-down, but explaining that could get a bit complicated.

Lizard Breath's comments are thoughtful and telling and i can't let them go unanswered, though i hadn't intended to go this much into the effects of entertainment on children.

Of course, kids know the difference between reality and fantasy. They also have an instinctive understanding of the source of fantasy. They have not learned denial and dissociation; their animal impulses are close to the surface: they're acutely aware of how difficult self-control is.
Whatever a human being can think of, some human beings can do. When we tell a child that nobody wants to take their bananas - real or imaginary - the child knows we're lying. We may not know we're lying, but if we stopped and thought about human history for a minute, we'd have to admit that people are always hurting one another and taking one another's stuff. What we're really telling the child is: we are keeping you safe - for the moment. And we can't be sure even of that much.

Young children are learning-machines with no off switch. The stories we tell, the games, toys, images and performances we create for them, all contribute to the picture of society in a child's head. We're teaching them our rules, values, morals, manners and what's expected of them, all the time - not only during designated lessons.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
red2
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5098

posted 11 March 2004 04:19 PM      Profile for red2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think there is a clue to thia activity in this.

"Displacement Activities and Stereotypes
An out-of-context or irrelevant response to anxiety is called a displacement behavior. During a social conflict, for example, a harassed cat may be undecided about whether to run from its attacker or to stand and fight. Instead, the cat displays a third, unrelated behavior, such as grooming. This is a normal activity that cats find calming and reassuring. If the displacement behavior becomes a habit and is generalized to any stressful situation, it becomes a stereotypy--a prolonged or repetitive behavior that serves no apparent useful purpose and, in some cases, is actually self-destructive. Stereotypies are sometimes compared to obsessive-compulsive disorders in humans."


http://www.catsinternational.org/articles/overcoming_stress/displacement_activities.html


From: nelson | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 11 March 2004 06:34 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dogs yawn. Apes grin. Squirrels twirl their tails. Horses paw the ground.
Humans talk - in an inconsequential, undirected stream. (Babble, actually, but i don't want to bite the master's hand.)

So, video games are a displacement activity for .. ? What's the source of anxiety?

This is going better than i expected (hockey herring notwithstanding). A dozen or more considered responses. See, i figure: the more we understand how we tick, the less other people can push our buttons, the better decisions we can make about the society and world we want to live in.

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 12 March 2004 03:35 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Video games kill
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 12 March 2004 09:01 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wireheads next.

Uh... i mean, gee, that poor guy!

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 12 March 2004 05:16 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My psychology textbook says that parents don't have that much influence on how their children develop and that the child's peers actually have more influence on them.
It all sounds a bit simplistic, but I thought I'd add that tidbit just to keep the discussion going.

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 12 March 2004 07:18 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's quite true, from puberty on; to a lesser extent from 5 to 12. Under five years, the family constitutes most a child's social environment. Under five, parents have a good deal of control over what the child experiences and learns; to what and whom the child is exposed.

A kid going off to kindergarten is already a person with rules and values, a pattern of behaviours, a set of skills. (These are, of course, subject to change, but surprisingly durable.) All the peers s/he meets at school and the playground are also products of families.
The peer group doesn't make up its own ideas, behaviour and beliefs: they bring some of these from home and recieve the rest from adults (teachers, cultural heroes, movies, fashion designers, advertisers, neighbours) who direct what kids see and learn, when the parents are not there, and as the parents lose power over an emerging young adult.
(edited to fix ambiguity.)

[ 12 March 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 12 March 2004 08:04 PM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Its difficult to have this discussion without a theory of memory.
From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 12 March 2004 08:49 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Please elucidate.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 13 March 2004 09:12 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, video games are a displacement activity for .. ? What's the source of anxiety?

Offhand, "day to day living in the world".

You have a bad day at the office, traffic's bad on the drive home, so you have a beer and play some vids. Shooting, driving, resource managing, whatever fantasy world you want. And because you can save, load, and restart, you exercise a degree of control over that little world. The impetus to get better at the game comes from the fact it's easier to improve the limited skill set required to 'beat' the game than it is to improve the vast and varied skill set required to 'beat' making a successful life in the real world.

So what have we got there: catharsis, control, escapism and improved self-worth.

You're not going to find a single reason, even within a single individual. I play first-person shooters, but I never play deathmatch games. I don't like competing in that way against my friends. I liked Quake 2 where you and friends could collaborate to defeat the monsters. That was fun, so add to the list surrogate social interaction, in essence a virtual team sport. Many people who play online games spend more time chatting over the server than actually playing the game, and you can see the popularity of online role-playing games.

Young people compete with one another for status, video games provide another competitive outlet. The admonition 'go outside and play' isn't going to pry kids off the Xbox, because it only offers what they're already getting: competition, status amongst their friends, and you don't need to get all sweaty and dirty.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 13 March 2004 09:54 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree. I love playing Doom (okay, my age is showing). I actually don't share your disdain for deathmatch games; I see it as friendly competition, though I seldom play deathmatch simply because it's a pain in the ass to coordinate everyone's schedule (especially when your potential opponents live halfway across the country). Competing with your friends in a non-critical way (be it at chess, cards, Doom, or whatever) can be a lot of fun, and I've never had hard feelings about losing a game (and when I play deathmatch I lose a lot ).
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 13 March 2004 12:19 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So what have we got there: catharsis, control, escapism and improved self-worth.

Yes. All these points have been mentioned and agreed (at least, there was no dissent on any of them). You've added stress-relief, friendly competition and relaxation, which are also good points. I may have already covered sublimation.

But 'displacement activity' is something else again. Animals do that when we're a bit scared and can't decide how to respond to a possible threat. One could suggest BushCo, 9-11 and sequelae as the source of anxiety, but we had violent games long before, in the absence of any real danger, so i don't think displacement activity applies.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 22 March 2004 10:05 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Of course, some games are more disturbing than others.

http://www.resistance.com/ethniccleansing/


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anti-Totalitarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5438

posted 10 April 2004 02:58 PM      Profile for Anti-Totalitarian        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

I've always said that hockey gave a harmless release to all that primal violence that I had welled up inside.

If you have 'primal violence welled up inside' then I would say you need help.


From: somewhere in subspace | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 April 2004 03:00 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Come here and say that!
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 10 April 2004 11:58 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Watch out - he's gonna hug you.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca