AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Do Video Games really cause people to go kill everyone.

218 51844
phsycomonkey
offline
phsycomonkey
789 posts
Nomad

Many instances of school shootings, bombings, or killing is often pointed at video games as the cause, but is it really their fault? Just because a game allows you to kill civilians does not mean that someone will want to do it, I have recently had a discussion with a friend who saw on the news that the game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, was to blame for the recent Russian bombing because the game has a level where you are able to kill civilians in a Russian airport. [url=http://www.inquisitr.com/96636/russian-media-pins-blame-for-suicide-bombing-on-call-of-duty-game/]

The video games that allowing innocent killing does not mean they support it. How a person is raised and treated growing up is why they would even consider this, which most kids have enough commen sense to know, you cannot "restart" or "respond" in life. I strongly disagree to the idea that video games are the cause of most killings today.

  • 218 Replies
nonconformist
offline
nonconformist
1,101 posts
Nomad

yeah man i 360 no scope the sh't outta people...

phsycomonkey
offline
phsycomonkey
789 posts
Nomad

I agree that there is a correlation to one's mood and video games. If I play a game and all I do is die or get spawn killed or something never works, I'll be in a somewhat bad mood. Although I get over it quick, I play games only to have fun, so if I'm not doing amazing or something, I'll just screw around.

On the contrary people who play video games just to prove they are best or to beat others only tend to be more violent I have noted and even scream and smash things. This behavior continues even when they get off, and is spiked even more if kicked off.

There defiantly is a noticeable relationship between video games and behavior, but perhaps not so extreme to say they want to kill people.

In some rare cases this has happened, I know someone who's uncle and aunt were killed by his cousin because they took his video game. The parents of this boy didn't even sell it or break it. They merely told him he had enough and he killed them.

So who knows, maybe it is only because of the person, maybe the video game changes the person.

Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

There are always 2 ways to look at something, I'm just pointing out the other way.

There is always at least 2 ways to look at something, I'm just pointing out one of the ways.

You're saying that video games have a direct correlation to violence, to essentially burn off steam and that violent games themselves is what better relieves stress.

What?
It's the anger taken OUT on the game that relieves stress, not the idea that you're killing something - kids aren't dumb, and they know it's not real.

And sure, some sociopaths reenact scenes they see in videogames,

Sociopaths aren't always like that - Psychopaths at least. Generally they could have an urge for something and a video game could present a specific ritual or it could simply remind them. Sociopathic people could be under an influence from anything, really.

Sociopathy includes Psychopathy and ASPD (Anti-Social Personality Disorder). Psychopathy is the inability to feel emotions - which is why it isn't a direct correlation to being insane, although with it has come urges and the like which sometimes result in violence.

It's been a while since we had a good war and in Britain at least, the stresses are showing, actually, the lack of any good violence recently is causing civil unrest.

... O.o That is more or less a problem with PEOPLE, not video games nor humanity - it's people if that is the case which I don't think it is.

London Riots? It happens, trying to link it with civil unrest whilst possible doesn't mean it's because of a lack of "good violence".

Now of course, i don't think we should go to war but i do think that videogames may be a, if nonproductive, but still effective, way to channel that anger.

Reason and logic should and do take priority over stress and anger (that is mostly unnecessary) for the higher standard of intelligent people. Channelling anger isn't the way to put it - you could channel your urge for, say, blood by using it "righteously".
Dexter does it pretty well. ^^

But channelling anger as opposed to letting it out would be by being destructive because you'll be focusing it. Letting it out? Meh, people find stress relief in use of intense hate on something / someone - I don't think it's justified, although I understand why it happens.

- H
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Basically, if we make it against the law to own guns, we are taking guns away from the civilian population so that they cannot defend themselves, and making it so that only law enforcement(who are sometimes corrupt), military(who can also be corrupt), and criminals have access to weapons.

Right, when you get robbed on the street in the evening, you're happy if you have a gun at home you can go fetch and go back to... oh ****, where did they go? They could at least have waited for me...
I understand that people want to feel safe and all that, but everytime I hear that someone shot another because he got insulted, I can't help thinking this wouldn't have happened without guns at home. Well, they might have used other things, but other things might 1. not immediately kill, and 2. the more close-range and &quotersonal", the higher the threshold to use it is. Pulling the trigger imo is easier than beating someone to death with a bar or, what did you use as an example? bite in someone's neck (seriously..).
Also, it's not like all Americans had one weapon at home to defend it, many have a whole arsenal and are trigger-happy gun nuts. Allowing people to defend their home is one thing, encouraging such a gun culture is another.

My point is, you cannot remove violence from society. It would be a massive waste of time and money even to try.

It certainly won't be achieved by prohibiting guns, because this is just fighting the symptoms. I believe guns are easier to use for violence but in the end, like you said it, the ones that want be violent will be violent, be it by beating and kicking someone to death. Violent games are such a symptoms too (phew, I made it back on-topic). If we want to change something to that, we have to change something in people's minds. I wouldn't be amazed if many violent behaviours can be tracked down to education, so I think that's one place to investigate closer: the parents and the environment.
Somewhat49
offline
Somewhat49
1,606 posts
Nomad

I think that really goes with your mental state and how much you think of the game is realistic.

devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

[quote]i think that really goes with your mental state and how much you think of the game is realistic

i agree with the first part but its not the realism its the mood the game puts u in while playing it. Kinda like the mood rap puts some people in, dark and angry. But i still listen to it and cant wait for MW3 to come out =P

That said, i dont think that video games are behind most domestic killings.

devsaupa
offline
devsaupa
1,810 posts
Nomad

disregard the 2nd and 3rd paragraph quotes, those are my words.

Somewhat49
offline
Somewhat49
1,606 posts
Nomad

i agree with the first part but its not the realism its the mood the game puts u in while playing it. Kinda like the mood rap puts some people in, dark and angry. But i still listen to it and cant wait for MW3 to come out =P

I think it's the realism because if it looks possible it could be considered an option in the person's mind, almost like "i did it before, so I could do it agian."
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

I don't know, I think (I hope) that most people can tell the difference between game and reality, and that only in a few psychological trouble cases the limit gets unclear. I rather think that those who plan on going on a rampage play a lot of shooters, as realistic as possible, to prepare themselves to what they're gonna do, after all it would be against their plan to have doubts in the crucial moment. Imo that's why in many cases the shooter is found to have played those games a lot.

Turtelman1234
offline
Turtelman1234
2,911 posts
Nomad

I don't really think that violent videogames are the reason kids do violent things. Although the early years of childhood are the most influential years for a kid, we've also been shown right from wrong. But that doesn't mean we should get 7-year-olds Xbox 360's and Gears of War (or a PS3 and God of War3, whichever you want to pick, but not important). And some of the violent videogames set in current times also show the more mature than 7-year-old kids (maybe about 12-15) what things are or were like in some parts of the world (example: CoD: Black Ops, Battlefield 3, the first 3 CoD's, etc.).

It also depends on how easily you're influenced by the people and media around you. If you're not influenced by many things, you might be less likely, and the same for the other way around. Not true in all cases, but the majority of the time because when you're influenced by bad things, you tend to loose sight of what's right and what's wrong.

Somewhat49
offline
Somewhat49
1,606 posts
Nomad

CoD: Black Ops, Battlefield 3, the first 3 CoD's, etc.
I don't agree that those games show you much, I think they are more shoot em ups than historical information givers. I think the games that WOULD do what you said those games do is age of empires and rise of nations because they make you use historical armies and weapons. And in some cases historical leaders
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

I don't know, I think (I hope) that most people can tell the difference between game and reality,

It's certainly the case - I don't see why people think that younger people can't distinguish... O.o

I rather think that those who plan on going on a rampage play a lot of shooters, as realistic as possible, to prepare themselves to what they're gonna do,

... I don't think ones immersion would be pushed that far.

after all it would be against their plan to have doubts in the crucial moment.

Possibly - although if I knew I wanted to go through with something a last minute hesitation wouldn't be my top priority - nor would it be for many killers, especially considering they're generally either very well planned (as in it took years) or it could've been (in)voluntary manslaughter.

Imo that's why in many cases the shooter is found to have played those games a lot.

The norwegian terrorist watched a show called Dexter, which is about a psychopathic blood analyst who works for the Miami Police, with an urge for blood. He solves this by killing other killers as a vindicator and hiding his tracks.
And he also played a lot of Call of Duty.

I played a lot of Call of Duty, and I've seen the first 4 (soon to be 5) seasons of Dexter - Dexter can be construed in that way, but I construe it as a huge insight on what emotions are and psychological effects. It's also quite moral in some cases.

Call of Duty? I hate the game now but nonetheless, it's rarely considered realistic.
For the record: Dexter is probably one of the best things I've seen - ever. Try it.

Although the early years of childhood are the most influential years for a kid,

Bare in mind the interpretation. I really don't think kids consider something on a screen realistic in any fashion and I honestly don't think what gives people that idea in the first place.

A traumatic event that was real however.
Different matter entirely.

what things are or were like in some parts of the world

It's more or less the thought pattern - letting them KNOW that this happens is more or less the necessity, I don't think showing it to someone - even at those ages (I'm 14) is a requirement.
For "entertainment", fine - Band of Brothers is probably the best at sparking emotion despite the probability that they saw it for the blood and gore - it brings the realization that it's not a joke.

It also depends on how easily you're influenced by the people and media around you.

I think young people should be taught to think for themselves, for the most part. Philosophy, religion and etc should be of their own doing - and the necessary information regarding them should be given to them so that their character decides for themself, it would literally be taking away that which makes them an individual to do otherwise.
Which is often the case. :/

Not true in all cases, but the majority of the time because when you're influenced by bad things, you tend to loose sight of what's right and what's wrong.

It depends how you're influenced - a prime example is my mother. She is a smoker - I hate smoke and I know smoking is unhealthy, my mother does it. Now, let's put it in the case that she was a high school girl with an attitude and is your stereotypical idiot.

I think that would guide me AWAY from smoking - this happens more often than not, even in cartoons if the "bad" guy is doing something "bad", it's not just about the good guy, really.

Granted, you're probably not going to do what the bad guy does because you thought about if he did it to you and figured it's a pretty bad thing - ultimately leading to thinking about yourself, but that can lead to knowledge of others as well.
The same about any knowledge, Dexter helped me gain insight on myself - because I looked at it like that, and it lets me gain insight on a lot of things.

Sorry for the long post, just figured that I have to go so I'll do what I can

Good bye, friends! ^^

- H
Somewhat49
offline
Somewhat49
1,606 posts
Nomad

It's certainly the case - I don't see why people think that younger people can't distinguish... O.o

I seriously have seen kids who played bloody war games from when they were little and they get influenced by the game and start being very violent twards other people. So it does have an influence, WWE has the same influence as well.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

I seriously have seen kids who played bloody war games from when they were little and they get influenced by the game and start being very violent twards other people. So it does have an influence, WWE has the same influence as well.


Id like to see your data. I seriously haven't. And what would distinguish a violent shoot 'em up from a different game, like Mario, if somehow watching something lead you to believe that it was a logical solution to your situation?
Somewhat49
offline
Somewhat49
1,606 posts
Nomad

Id like to see your data. I seriously haven't. And what would distinguish a violent shoot 'em up from a different game, like Mario, if somehow watching something lead you to believe that it was a logical solution to your situation?

Sadly I have no data because I've just have been observing this and it was a logical solution because one of those kids lived on my block and he had nice parents and everything, the only changing factor that I could see was the fact that he played GOW and Halo.
And for the game Backyard Wrestling and WWE I've seen kids mimic what they do in the game and on T.V.
Showing 151-165 of 218