May 16, 2007
Over at the San Jose Mercury-News, reporter Mike Antonucci - whose piece on game violence was cited by GP yesterday - writes:A valuable site, GamePolitics.com (I must have mentioned it before!), has cited a story of mine about game violence that was in the Mercury News Saturday...
But it’s not my piece that spurred this post. Rather, I want to alert folks to how smart the GamePolitics readers are. The thread of comments about my article seem (to me) much more interesting than the article. Yikes!
On behalf of GP readers, Thanks, Nooch!
Comments
rules 1 and 2 pal
(Oh! Snap!)
I have to say, even with the flock of newer, more rabid anti-anti-gamers here, and even adding in the occasional b-chan BS, GP is easily one of the better examples of intelligent discourse on the net.
Hopefully this will create a better view from the mainstream media about gamers and their passtime.
When i get tattoos i get massive adrenaline rushes...which in turn does not lead me to more agrgressive behaviour...
"So far, the only reliable findings showing *any effect* rely on the fact that games can give you an adrenaline rush (eg like exercise) which in turn leads to more aggressive behaviour."
The same can be said for an intense scene in a movie or book, a heated debate, watching a sporting event, talking to a cute girl, the list goes on and on. Truth be told most anything can give an adrenaline rush, but it doesn't mean you are more violent. More aggressive and aware, but that doesn't necessarily translate to violence.
So far, the only reliable findings showing *any effect* rely on the fact that games can give you an adrenaline rush (eg like exercise) which in turn leads to more aggressive behaviour.
Seriously though, the unfair/ridiculous reporting that games usually gets is just polarizing opinion. Labeling games ‘murder simulators’ or ‘columbine trainers’ or similar is stupid, it incites gamers to support the equally stupid position that games can’t possibly have a negative impact.
I think if people really sat down and looked at the whole picture, it is clear that a rating system is need for games.
If there was more rational debate on violence in games (such as in Mikes article) the whole thing might have been sorted out by now… maybe!
On the other hand, one would have to put considerable effort into training via a computer game, not the scattered play that most people get. I'd suggest as well that the brain reasserts reality, as it were, dismissing the game as being a non-real experience. (I have no evidence for this last claim, it's merely a hypothesis.)