Hi all, this is Harsha. I gone through this website and found some interesting information about Video games. we have a site
secrets and tips , which provides a great info about WOW games.

@jonc2006

If you ban guns, then the only people that will have guns will be criminals. Kind of a "catch-22."

if guns didnt exist then they would use knifes or whatever is next in line.

Just a thought but maybe to prevent sociopaths they should prevent them from getting guns.

@ laputaquelepario

I personally doubt that videogaming can actually change you in anything other then you already are...

The findings (for me, at least) have a point.

Take war-infested countries, for example. Children in parts of the middle east and Africa (where there's always 37 wars going on which nobody in first-world countries ever know about) are born and raised with powerful, semi-automatic firearms, live amongst rubble and debris, and are as accustomed to hearing the sounds of air-raid sirens and the blasts of mortar shells as we are used to hearing birds singing in the trees.

How that will *not* transform anyone from a reasonable person who welcomes dialogue as a recourse to diffusing conflict into one who opts to blow holes into somebody's head is beyond me, and certainly beyond those unfortunate souls who have to live through such hell on earth.

As is normally the case, there is never one factor that can be singled out as the definitive cause of teenage violence; a combination of genetics, parental rearing and environmental factors all contribute, but I certainly agree with the wuthor(s) that being exposed to violence, firearms and war, simulated or real, will definitely affect you, one way or another.

The same goes for videogames, movies, and yes, even literature (Mein Kampf,anyone?).

I'm not saying that playing violent games turns you into a homicidal maniac, but I seriously doubt it will turn you into the next mother Theresa, either.

lols Picho, I'm just saying the difference in attitudes is interesting, once upon a time the only thing we had to fear was fear itsself, now it's HOLY SHIT THE TERRORISTS MAY STRIKE AT ANY MOMENT YOU HAVE TO VOTE FOR MY PARTY OR ELSE THE TERRORISTS WILL STRIKE BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE OTHER PARTY AND THE OTHER PARTY LOVES THEM!

As far as behavoir modification goes, I'm more worried about the effect our gov't has over people. Look at how people are these days about terrorists, if you tell them that they have to kill their dogs in order to stay safe from terrorists they would do it in a second.

Hey I think I just thought up a nifty April Fools joke for GW. I should call him.

"Its the ancient “Chicken or the egg” paradox… "

The egg came first, since fish, dinosaurs, and lizards could lay eggs before chickens existed.
@ Oscar
"Why on earth are you people so convinced that children who sit in their basements all day pretending to kill people through realistic games could never, not ever, not possibly become anti-social or violent? It’s sad, the denial. It really is. "

Unlike in life, to negitives make a positive. Thus your two nots cancel each other out.

And no, most of the time they dont become anti-social. They start off that way.

Most violent behavior is in response of lack of sexual ability to preform, not through video games. This behavoir is even found in animals. There are those sorts of animals that are highly sexualy powerful, and those who are lesser. The lesser need to fight the greater in order to continue to spred thier seed. In humans, who normaly lack even the most basic of instincts, this is only view on one half of the spectrum.

Since as humans most of us lack the basic understanding of why we do things, we attempt to find scapegoats to justify why this is that. Such as greek myths where Apollo drove a cart holding the sun or som jazz like that. At that time we didnt Understand what was going on with it. Then we found out that its the earth that circles the sun, and the sun is a big ball of fire.

Heck, we use to think we could heal people by bleeding them to death.

If anything, Video games give us the ability to release our violence in a less destructive way. Researches look at this and think that the reverse is created. In other words most researches think that instead of allowing us to release, they give us more tendencies to do violent behaviour.

But since violence has existed even beyond the years of man, the only things that can truely be justified as violence creaters are, Sexual failures, Verbal communication break down and most importantly Stupid people. (Mind you that this list in not intierly all conclusive, and there are some other things that ill put in.)

@ Oscar K.

I can see the difference. What I cannot see is the negative effects.

You mentioned above that the person who spends his entire life in his parents' basement will develop antisocial tendencies. What your naive argument completely ignores is that your future antisocial deviant is already spending all of his time in his parents' basement. There would obviously have to be some sort of pre-existing mental disorder that would drive them to avoid social contact like that, rather than seek people to game with in the real world.

All of the research has shown that violent crime rates among youth have been dropping for the last 20 years. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I feel safe in claiming that violent content in the actual games have been going up for the last 20 years, as core audiences get older and demand mature games to suit their more grown-up tastes.

Show me more causative studies that show a rise in violent youth crime paired with violence in media, and I'd be more incline to believe you. But for now, the numbers just don't back up your claims.

@Tills

In this paper “college” did mean university right? In my country it means high school. So they studied children vs adults?

Presumably. Here in the USA college and University tend to get used interchangeably.

@Oscar K.

The question isn't "is there a difference?" it's "How big of a difference is there?". when it comes to making children more aggressive how much more effective are the video games compared to movies? Are they FAR more effective?, Minimally more effective? Or are they just as effective? Merely identifying a difference between two forms of media is not enough to make a distiction, you have to PROVE that one is FAR more effective then another before you starting saying that one media is worse than the others.

So far, studies have failed to show that video games are much more effective than all other forms of media when ti comes to increased agression. I notice three distict flaws in these studies...

first their is how the studies are conducted. The studies often time don't prove what the critics claim they are saying, they aren't really accurate in showing how the games will cause a person to be more violent in the real world. This is what we have with the noise blast test, they never really explain how blowing a noise a few millisecond sooner prove that kids will be more violent in real life. A similar noise blast study was also done aginast the HOLY bible, and the results were similar to that of the study done for video games? Now, if we think video games are bad due to noise blast studies, then logically we MUST also say the holy bible is bad because of similar studies(seeing as their is no way we can logically reject one study and still except the other)... but ofcourse i refute the results of both studies as not being accurate proof of causeing violence... maybe riling poeple up a bit, but not making them violent.

second common flaw in some studies is corralation studies versus Causation studies. In order to say video games CAUSE violence you must prove causation. However, many studies such as the surveys only prove a corralation, bascially saying that violent poeple and violent video games are often found together. The problem with Corralation studies is you have a chicken and the egg kind of scenerio; did the kids become violent because they played violent video games, or did they play violent video games because they are violent. Hell. in a corralation study, its even possible for the two not to have any real relation (for instance, the corralation between increas in violent games and the decrease in crime activity, is one that i think does not have an actual relationship and is more of coincidence... though i would still think if games cause A LOT of violence in poeple, the crime rates wouldn't be going down). Though from those corralation studies, and knowing how MILLIONS of poeple play violenet video games, the cvast majority of which are non-violent... i think the most sencible conclusion is that the poeple of those studies were violent poeple who decided to play violent video games because they were something they were ALREADY into... Most violent video game playerss are NOT violent poeple, but MOST violent poeple play violent video games; or something close to that... violent poeple love to play and watch stuff that are violent, it makes perfect sence.

The final common flaw in these studies that i see is that they do not compare themselves well to other forms of media. The studies will be exclusively done towards vidoe games, but the same study is not done against violent movies, TV, music, or ANYTHING that might also potentially increase violence. Without comparison studies, we can not possibly say games are WORSE... we can say they are bad, but not nessasarily worse then anything that has allready been out there.


There is also another difference i think you should take into consideration between video games and movies; REALISM. What i understand by just being exposed to all sorts of media is that our minds react more to things when they are more realistic; the easier it is for us subconciously tell the difference between reaility and fiction the less effect those things we experience will effect us, and the less we are effected by something, the less influence it will have on our minds in the long run. Lets look at 3D realism, live action movie realism, and real life situations. Comparing real life to live action movies. Poeple can watch a live action movie and watch poepole get shot and killed and be only somewaht phased, but you put those poeple in a real life situtation where poeple are being shot and killed, they will be scared shitless and completely horrified but what they see even when they know they are not being targeted. Comparing 3D realism and live action realism, we get a similar feeling. Video games have a lot to them that does not feel real. the graphics for one thing, no matter how good they get, were made using code in a computer and thus fail to ever truely match up to reallife. Secondly, the POV the player has while playing a game is an unreal one, we do not see the world from a third person view, and when it comes to First person games, those two are not like realitity ssince in rela life we can look around, look at ourselves, see our whole bodies, not just our two front arms that never seem to leave our direct line of sight. Hell, another thing common with many violent games is a weak story build up which makes you not really "feel" for the characters; the same feeling that movies use to really get you to "feel" for the poeple and pull you more into the film. While Video games may be interative, i find them to be a rather detached experience compared to movies. In live action movies, we have live actors with very high end realistic special effects. Live action films come VERY close to feeling like the real thing, like we are almsot actually watching these things happen in real life. The degree of realism is how movies pull the viewer into the film and making the feel part of the experience, and it's all reflected in how it effects our minds. I myself for instance, can play a video game where i tear poeple limd from limb using nothing but a rusty daggar and i will barely flitch... in contrast however, you will NEVER see me anywhere near a showing of one of the SAW movies... those movies have a way of scaring the hell out of me. The realism difference is what plays the role here, my mind can easily distinguish between the images generated by a computer, but has a great deal of trouble with images of actual poeple in very realistic, though fictional, violence. Just ask yourself... what kind of media causing you to be the most emotional, a live action film, a realistic 3D game/film, or an animated film... i've noticed that i tend to be most emotionally moved from live action movies myself (though a good animated film can still give a fair amount of emotion)... i'd say because of how much more realistic it is, that live action movies and such tend to have a stronger effect on our minds.

One last thing i would want to hear from you is your opinion of SPORTS, such as Football, boxing, and hunting. In football kids are physically trained to be stronger and faster, and they are taught how to use a great deal of physcail force to knock down other humans; also remeber this is something teenagers are actually encouraged to do, and that disipline as to how that muscle is NOT supposed to be used is not exactly common in training. Boxing, is a sport where you are actually taught how to fight, you are trained to be physically very strong, and taught exactly how to throw a punch... these poeple than use that training and beat the crap out of other players. The their is Hunting, where the person is taught how to point, aim and shoot a gun at a LIVING creature with aim of actually KILLING their target... and some poeple teach their teens this kind of stuff... What is your opinion on such violent activities that are commonly excepted in today's society?

I think it's quite funny that for all these arguements that come out either way on this arguement, I've played violent videogames, read violent books and seen violent movies and have never once acted violently or even had the impulse to act violently toward anyone, except very few exceptions in my life which had justification and weren't pre-empted or followed by video gaming. I also think its quite interesting that of all the videogamers I've ever met in my entire existance, none of which have been violent people despite playing several violent games. So books like this, and the elitist arguements of people like OscarK can float around all they want, in true practice for me and several others, these studies are false representations of the truth, in adults, young adults, adolescents, and even pre-teen and smaller children.

If the videogame drives you to kill, you probably already had your share of problems. Like the inability to discern the difference between reality and fantasy, which is a deep-seated personality problem that simply cannot be birthed by video gaming. As for short term aggression? A lot of things that aren't inherently violent cause that, like driving, or basketball or even sports, if the person in question has a competitive nature, or is already violent. So I'm just about sick of the slanted arguements that video gaming causes these problems, because the worst it can do is expand and compound them.

And in that case, it really all comes down influence and guidance, which is hardly the responsibility of the people that made and marketed said video games (or any other form of artistic expression for that matter), but comes down to the parent or guardian, even therapist, social worker, or etc.

Sorry it is supposed to say "Showing it is women who are more naturally violent than men ;-p."

"I, for one, never said that like many others here didn’t. Children who sit in their basements all-day playing violent videogames could become anti-social and/or violent. Just like children who sit in their basement all day and watch horror movies or read comic books or watch televised sports or watch FOX news or read the Bible."

Kids watching FOX news all day are probably more likely to be socially maladjusted than kids playing violent video games all day. They *know* the games are fake, but they might actually think that FOX news is real...

This has the same basic problem as Anderson's previous studies: Namely, it certainyl shows a link, but defines agression in a way with little real-worl applicability. Forceful and assertive pursuit of one's goals is pretty much a virtue in Amaerican society. When violence is defined as doing intentional harm to others, but abstracted to the point that you aren't talking about physical injury anymore, essentially you're left with competition increases competitive behavior, which economists have argued for years. I realize it's rather difficult to do a control group with long term studies, but this is nowhere near being able to say violent games make kids into violent criminals.

@Oscar K.

What exactly is your point? These are the very same researchers that said violent media produces violent behavior, whether it be a video game or movie. In fact, as I previously stated earlier, the same noise blast study was done on religion and the same results were found. That study on religion involved people READING the Bible (a book) yet the same results were found as playing violent video games.

Who cares if the item in question is interactive (video game) or passive (book), because the results are the same, regardless.

Also, would you claim that we shouldn't care about a Playboy magazine or a pornographic movie? Both of which are considered passive materials (magazine, movie), but we still regulate them. You wouldn't say we should only regulate porn in video games, but give children access to porn everywhere else as long as it isn't interactive would you? In other words, you wouldn't treat them differently, right?

@Allen

I don't know about you, but although I sometimes feel frustrated when playing games, I never go out and cut someone because I feel frustrated. Also, if frustration at failure led to violence, then almost all the sports players out there would be serial killers.

The guy is still using the noise blast study. The one where people played street fighter and had a much louder and longer response (which is not necessarily true).

According to the test, women gave longer and louder scores than men. With women giving average sounds at 6.84 seconds and men at 6.59.

Yet with Violent games to non violent games it was less (wolfenstein 3d at 6.81 to Mysts 6.65). Showing it is women who are more naturally violent than women ;-p. Yet this shmuck claims that this is a dramatic change (with only 16 hundreths of a second compared to the 25 hundreths of a second between male and female).

This guys obviously needs some serous help in being a scientist. I mean not only are his results inconclusive (due to the fact that the difference in sex has more in common with rage than violent or non violent games). He also neglects to inform that his study has not withstood the scrutiny of the court.

"There is a big difference between violent video games and other types of violent media. Video games let the person playing them “do” the killing. You get to be the shooter, you get to fire the gun, you get to decide who gets killed and when. You don’t get to do this in movies or books. You only get to watch. The teenager who watches a violent movie is a passive observer not an integral part of the plot, participating in the virtual violence as it unfolds–making it happen. When you watch a movie you are not in charge of the violence. When you play a violent video game you are in charge of it. Can you not see this fundamental difference? Or don’t you want to? (I already know the answer of course)"

There is a big difference between Dungeon's and Dragons and other types of violent media. Dungeons and Dragons let the person playing them “do” the killing. You get to be the soldier, you get to swing the sword, you get to decide who gets killed and when. You don’t get to do this in movies or books. You only get to watch. The teenager who watches a violent movie is a passive observer not an integral part of the plot, participating in the virtual violence as it unfolds–making it happen. When you watch a movie you are not in charge of the violence. When you play Dungeond and Dragons you are in charge of it. Can you not see this fundamental difference? Or don’t you want to? (I already know the answer of course)

Whoah! Flashback to the eighties!

If someone is unable or unwilling to seperate the nature of a "violent video game" from the nature of the reality that we all inhabit, they were messed in the head to begin with. It's a fair stretch from mum's basement in suburbia to the dark and dingy streets of Manhunt, the cyber-punk world of Deus Ex, hell even the streets of everyones favourite punching bag GTA. No matter how realistic the game, how accurate the bloodspray (which after a point just become boring. Gameplay > Graphics always has, always will) a game only occupies a 21inch square.

Now, with that in mind:

A young boy in a random suburb is outside with his friends, doing the young boys thing of "AAAH I'M A KNIGHT AND I SHALL SLAY THIS DRAGON (next door's boy) WITH MY SWORD OF POWER (foam baseball bat)" Perfectly normal, nothing to see here, move along.

Mid-Teenage boy is inside at his desk playing Counter-Strike. Porbably thinking something like: "AAAH I'M A HOSTAGE RESCUE TEAM AND I SHALL SLAY THE TERRORIST (next door's son) WITH MY ASSAULT RIFLE (mouse)" and lo the respons comes: "Oh My God! A Serial killer in the making! Quick lock him up with teddy bears and Tom Sawyer books before he can do anyone some harm!

The general thing with all of this is: If you go out and murder, beat up somone or engage in some kind of property damage, the fact that you were an avid gamer has about as much relavence as what you ate for breakfast that morning. You had tendencies towards this kind of behaviour before you played, and regardless of the fact you played "violent video games." Perhaps the incessant bullying, absent parents, sexual abuse or anyone of a inumeralble amount of factors have just a slightly more realistic chance of causing such behavior? Then again it is much easier to spin the sad story that video games made me/my child into a killer, because then I don't have to take that nasty thing called responsibilty to heart.

/soapbox

"We were surprised to find that exposure to violent video games was a better predictor of the students’ own violent behavior than their gender or their beliefs about violence…"

That's kind of circular for a 'scientific study' isn't it?

I could just as well say that violent behaviour is a better predictor of one's exposure to violent videogames than gender or social disposition.

"Even the children’s violent video games - which are more cartoonish and often show no blood - had the same size effect on children and college students as the much more graphic games have on college students."

And again, that can be just as effective an argument for either side of the debate. Couldn't you easily say that this indicates that you could just as well implicate Mario as Manhunt into a violent crime? Mario involves the protagonist crushing and burning his foes to death after all.

Why can nongaming people comfortably see Mario as what it is - a game, with rules and components - and yet only see Manhunt as its abstracted representation?

Seduction of the Innocent 2007

@Yoshiko

I was wondering when someone was going to comment on that one.
As for you being the one who did it. lol.

tell me this how many riots have LAN parties caused worldwide?
Now tell me how many football riots, or soccer riots (either one) have there been?
How much has each riot type on riot costed?

I blame "A Clockwork Orange", "If", rock'n'roll music, Dungeons & Dragons, and freebasing pixie stix for my psychotic episodes. Oh yeah and society.

It makes me happy that professionals and the well educated have such wonderful ideas and my best interests at heart and the funding and time to spend on such vitally important issues.

Now if only they could do something about that pesky Elvis fellow.

Ironically, that noise-blast study was used by another researcher (Brad Bushman) who used it and found a link between religion and violent behavior. Remember that study? Dennis had it up on this site.

So I really doubt that Jack Thompson, Joe Lieberman, or any other critic would use Anderson's study and not see how it could implicate religion.

I just love how JT once claimed that Bushman is a credible researcher and also claimed that Bushman said there is a "causal" link between video games and violent behavior (even though there isn't). Now Bushman says religion is linked to violent behavior. Will JT still claim Bushman is a credible researcher?

There have been far more sexual assaults perpetrated by high-school jocks than by high-school video-gamers (yes, yes, I understand the two groups are not mutually exclusive). Does that mean there's a causal link between playing sports and violent behavior?

More people have been killed "in the name of God" than for any other reason in history (this is still true even if you are only counting since video games were invented). Does that mean there's a causal link between believing in God and violent behavior?

Ban school sports and religion, then come talk about banning violent video games.

Oh... making laws against football and religion aren't so popular, are they? Not many soccer-mom votes in those topics... hmm.

(Not to mention that any law banning any kind of religion would be just as un-constitutional as banning video games).

This is a load of crap. If they imply a violent video game causes violent behavior, the have to imply nearly all other forms of entertainment. Whenever a new form of media becomes popular, some jerks always go on a witch hunt. Music, Movies, Books, everyone is always looking for something to blame, some cause that makes people violent. They always forget that we are human, as long as life exists, there's going to be violence, getting rid of some "violent" video games aren't going to change the fact that people get messed up psychologically and sometimes those people hurt others. Really, they're trying to I guess, in a way, look at something objectively by generalizing everything, when that way isn't going to work. I guess what I'm trying to say is that one stimulus isn't going to affect every person exactly the same.

I don't see this book being very successful.

"Violent Video Game Effects On Children and Adolescents"

How about something more marketable like:

"Games Eat Babies"
"Death, Destruction, and Video Games"
"Murdering for Fun"
"Virtual Armageddon"

I mean, THOSE titles will sell some books! With a title like VVGEOCAA (I refuse to type out the entire thing a second time) they won't even break even.

And just to add to that, I've stated more times than I can count that the Manson Family used the Beatles White album to justify homocide, 2 years ago, a woman murdered her year old children because a spider crawled across her hand and she thought it was a message from God telling her to do and NO-ONE has a problem with an insanity plea....

http://www.click2houston.com/news/4046521/detail.html

From Dr Anderson's site...

'Although playing a violent video game on an occasional basis is unlikely to produce any long-term harmful consequences, repeated exposure to violent entertainment media of any type is an important risk factor for later aggressiveness. '

In other words, anyone going after laws based on this guys research had better be prepared to either go for ALL media or face the 14th for descimination.

Once again, it seems to me that the problem here is those 'new fangled' computer games. Everyone admits that these media forms all have an impact of some kind, though no-one can agree what exactly, and yet are quite willing to single out computer games as a scapegoat for it.

Maybe they get more aggressive at the end of the year because they are constantly being pushed around and harassed as geeks thanks to the stereotypes Thompson and his ilk push around?

I say, once again, where the control? Are controls something that are considered too 'inconvenient' for including into research?

Frankly I have massive concerns as to Dr Andersons impartiality in the matter, he has shown time and time again to want to find these results, and, like cold fusion, you can always find the results you want.

I am using some of Anderson's research in an English class this semester for College Freshmen. It's a good application of focusing and refining a thesis. Anderson's article don't prove that games make you a more violent person, but his research does show increases in short term aggression with his populations studied. For my students it's good practice in narrowing down a thesis to what the research can actually prove - not just want you (as a researcher) WANT to prove.

Anderson has consistently found increases in short term aggression with differently populations (age, gender, etc). While Anderson and his GAM model have led the way trying to connect video games to violence the evidence continues to show short term increases. As others have pointed out there are many additional factors that muddy the results in the longterm.

Research Quest - the gaming librarian

@ janarius

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/28/violent-games-dont-cause-youth-violen...

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/19/researcher-finds-scant-evidence-linki...

Um, isn't this the same loser that the courts keep telling us is a fraud and a failure?

Or is that jack? I can't help but laugh at it either way. Craig can't get honest work in research anymore, so instead he cranks out book deals.

Sad, but not at all suprising

@Conejo:
I agree completely.. I didn't get beaten up when I was eight merely because of violent video games. I got beaten up because people think it's okay to harrass and pummel geeks and nerds. To say it's the fault of a video game will not stop somebody else from lying out on a cold field for several hours like I did, and to think it will merely mocks the cause of violence control in public education.

189 out of, oh, several thousands...And the same with 430 out of several thousand. Yeah, such a big percentages.

More Bullshit research from a moron whose research has been debunked by the federal courts over the last several years, a researcher from USC, and a researcher from Texas A&M.

This just in: Teenage males become more violent and agressive as they reach adulthood and then mellow out in their late 20s. Also, some of them play video games.

I just noticed:

Does the third study actually compare the increased level of violence to other kids who did not play violent games or just to the violent videogame players themselves?

And why would games be the only reason that the students got more agressive?
Maybe school life in general (with the jocks, populars, nerds etc.) was pising them of.

Okay then, you unquestionable Ph.D-wielding gods among men, explain to me why even as sales of violent games have been going up, violent crime has been going down.

It seems you can't. You also can't explain how correlation=causation. Which is why your studies are consistently thrown out by the courts when they are presented in game bill cases.

Quite so, the word agression has become a blanket term for so many different ways of acting and reacting that it is easy to use it in a way that suits your agenda.

And like Doggyspew mentioned, people who are not agressive by nature are less likely to play violent games, wich means that the "exposure" (another nicely loaded term I might add) to violent videogames will ALWAYS be bigger for the rest of the gamers.

I'ts the ancient "Chicken or the egg" paradox...

Again the question rises: Are these kids agressive BECAUSE of videogames, or do they like agressive games because THEY are more agressive ?

Even so, what does agressive mean then ? More hostile towards others, or plain dangerous towards others. Being more agressive then the others does not mean you commit violent crimes.

[...] GamePolitics.com [...]

[...] GamePolitics.com [...]