Both these Idiots should probably play the games first before spouting there BS.

While the motion controls for a game like Manhunt mimic the motion, it in no way is even close to accurate, and in many ways is off putting as it makes what should be simple game mechanics must harder to do then they should.

BUt then again, facts mean nothing to these people anyway.

You know, it's weird. I played a lot of racing games before I got my license, yet for some reason my thumbs don't try to steer when I drive. I must have been playing the games wrong. I also don't move my fingers when I communicate verbally, weird.

Why are people in our country so stupid? First they complain about video games leading to laziness and inactivity and now that they have a more active console it leads to violence. There is no pleasing these uneducated people with nothing better to do than cast wild and incompetent accusations.

Two things.

1st they do realise there is a rating system for games right? God forbid a parent do their job and monitor their children.

2nd As someone pointed out the Wii has what 3 violent games.

The only thing that concerns me is that somewhere down the line, someone is going to listen to this nonsense and rambling and its going to impact the gaming industry through a pointless piece of legislation.

A lot of these so called studies are questionable at best in their methods of proving such links. One that uses brain scanning to prove a link of aggression neglects to mention that same part of the brain is stimulated by any type of action filled activity such as playing sports or even exercising. Should we jump on the band wagon to outlaw those too?

I have actively participated in full steel 11th century re-enacting (that is, dressing up in steel chain mail with a steel sword and wooden shield and beating the snot out of each other) and even that doesn't prepare you for a fight away from stylised rules of combat.

And that doesn't even factor in the difference between swinging a plastic remote and swinging 5 kilos (~11 lbs) of 4 foot long steel...

Anyhoo, let's just ban hockey, baseball, javelin, discus, boxing, martial arts and waving our arms about like the Lost in Space robot, cos clearly all of those things train you with muscle memory to do violence to others...

Would he be refering to the same Wii that has maybe 3 violent games? Or at least, 3 that aren't hugely cartoony

The Wiimote can't mimic weight, swinging force, resistance or any other characteristic a real weapon, argument invalid.

NEXT!!!

"We see the folks that use more violent media tend to be more violent."

Are you sure? Did they ever stop to consider that folks that are more violent tend to use more violent media? Just like every other study done into the alleged effects of violent media, this is called correlation. It's a loose connection that proves nothing.

"I think parents are in the dark… "

They aren't the only ones Dr. Linn...

"You would have to play the game and you would have to get good at the game to get to the really violent parts, so it’s hard for parents. "

That's completely untrue. Look at Devil May Cry, the lead character is impaled through the chest within 30 seconds of the opening cut-scene. Look at God of War, the very first level has people being killed by undead soldiers, and there is a tutorial showing you how to rip them in half. Look at Counterstrike, the current critics target, there isn't even an intro, simply straight into the shooting, no matter how good or bad you are.

Hey, you don't even have to play the damn game, just read the back of the damn box for the content descriptions or go online and read a parent friendly review on Gamerdad.com. It's incredible that these people view parents as being so dumb that they can't figure out what is in a game with all the information that is available. Although, it's equally incredible that parents can and routinely DO ignore the available information, not through it being hard to find or esoteric and difficult to understand, but out of sheer laziness and ignorance.

@Kula

Keep in mind these same parents are the ones buying the games since I'm sure Jr. doesn't have a job and such a young age.

"I think parents are in the dark… You would have to play the game and you would have to get good at the game to get to the really violent parts, so it’s hard for parents. "

Umm... no, you don't have to play it... the ESRB did that for you and rated the game... u know, it's called a rating... its on the box. It looks like a big M and it's really hard to miss. What are they complaining about exactly?

@Twin-Skies

I've heard stories,but I was speaking of one one would intentionally do

After playing 10 minutes of wii boxing i was able to knockout mike tyson...and destroy our new plasma screen T.V.

"What we need to do is give them the same information that’s provided on a can of food they buy in the store that says here’s what’s contained in this, here’s what it may do to you. You choose."

Calories-0 Calories from fat-0
Total Fat-0g
saturated fat-0g
trans fat-0g
Cholesteral-0mg
Sodium-10mg

Need I go on?

lol wow i didnt know playing video games had 10mg sodium
(i hate how you cant edit)

Why are you even bothering, guys?

Do you think any of these guys care? They just want attention, and it works.

I just took a look at the Campaign for Com. Free Childhood website.

That is the most pathetic thing I have ever seen in my life. A bunch of idiots that got together and decided that no matter what the Constitution says, they feel it necessary to ruin the fun of adults and kids alike.

Lets see, I look at my M rated Wii game at it says:
"Blood and Gore
Crude Humor
Intense Violence
Sexual Themes
Strong Language"

You're right, I think the entire back of the box should be the warning. And we should also design a robotic arm that will bitchslap anyone under 18 who tried to pick up the book.

"What we need to do is give them the same information that’s provided on a can of food they buy in the store or on a cigarette package that says here’s what’s contained in this, here’s what it may do to you. You choose."

Okay, I've never had problems finding out what's in the game. Content descriptors are already there. As for what it may DO to you, this exists purely in a realm of science fiction. There have been NO studies which have positively identified violent media as a causation factor in violent behavior. So what you are demanding is inaccurate health risk labels...

and you call yourself a Doctor...

It should also be noted that 90% of the wii motions in game prepare you more for jerking it vigorously until you go blind than anything else.

@ DeusPayne: I can prove that, just say the word.

This just in: children learning to cook are learning the muscle memory to chop, slice, dice, boil, scald, burn, stab, carve, cleave, tenderise and (god help us) refrigerate.

Hand out the bubble wrap...

Oh come now, Jack Williams, (the pictured anchorman) i have too much respect for you for you to be bought in by this crock!

"You are learning the muscle memory necessary to do those acts, to stab someone, to chop someone, to shoot someone."

The Wiimote is so sensitive in its motions, you could do something barely related to the same motion and still end up having the action take place on screen sometimes.

"It’s one step closer to a virtual reality in which you are actually doing these things to people."

And by that time the systems will be so freaking expensive NOBODY outside of the insane hardcore people are going to buy them.

"What we need to do is give them the same information that’s provided on a can of food they buy in the store or on a cigarette package that says here’s what’s contained in this, here’s what it may do to you. You choose."

"Here's what it may do to you??" Excuse me?? THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF IT DOES ANYTHING TO ANYBODY.

More than that, what are they looking for? They already have, like, a dozen different 'violence' descriptors. What more do they want? A list of every fatality move on the back of an Mortal Kombat box? The list of weapons you can use on the back of a Halo game? How many sexual referance VA lines are within a GTA title?

This ISN'T food. This ISN'T a chemical. And i've said it before, and i'll say it again, THIS ISN'T THE MATRIX. It's SOFTWARE.

Typical CCFC crap.

If more children are playing M-rated games, then why aren't the parents doing anything about it?

"You would have to play the game and you would have to get good at the game to get to the really violent parts, so it’s hard for parents"

Apparently sitting down with your kids and watching how they enjoy the game YOU BOUGHT THEM is too much of a burden for everyday people. We need the government to watch our kids for us. If it's too hard for you, heaven forbid you spend time with your child.

I learned more about swordplay by watching movies, then going outside, picking up a stick and swinging it around at a playground set, to see how fast I could strike the bars.

Going outside is a murder simulator.

Clearly food labels have had an outstanding impact since no one in the US is obese.

And clearly those smoking warning labels have had an effect since no one smokes. And smoking has a lot of benefits too. Like zero of them.

Most parents won't care about some label on a videogame, because most parents don't care about videogames. They don't see the harm in them. Why does the media?

If ANYTHING in video games trains muscle memory to make people more violent, it's the pulling of the Xbox controller's triggers to fire weapons in Halo.

They're talking about a device that looks like a TV remote and that children can flail about like a club, because that's about as much as you'll be doing with it. The last time they had one of these shows where someone was "demonstrating" the Manhunt 2 controls, he didn't look like he was bashing someone's face in: he looked like he was about to have a seizure.

Damn fear mongers.

All of these SO CALLED reports and studies claim that video games increase the aggressor response in the brain. My only questions are these, by how much? does it make someone more aggressive than say someone playing Football or Chess? or doing any competitive activity at all? Does the aggressive behavior last for an extremely long time after a play session or is it only when they are engaged in the activity? These are the questions that need to be asked, and so far, I have not heard anyone ask them. Is it not more likely that people are having an aggressive response because They have been taught by their parents to be aggressive when engaged in competitive activity, not to mention that most people are competitive by nature.

You know, the reaction to these stories always dissapoints me. Here everyone is critizing the author of this newest study for not fairly investigating the "true" relationship between violent video game use and violent behavior. And yet this response is far more reactionary and irrational than anything you ever see in the effects literature connecting violent media and violent behavior.

Now I agree that the connections the author makes are problematic. First and foremost, as someone else pointed out- humans have engaged in play where muscle memory necessary for violence is learned long before the advent of video games. Furthermore, the suggestion that MRI scans indicate evidence that the brain does not always distinguish between real and play violence should not be surprising. We have known for quite some time that the physical reactions of the body to play violence are similiar to those of real violence. Thus we should expect the brain to respond similiarly. Still, this is an interesting site of research which hopefully will see further investigation.

Finally, as others have pointed out, the finding that users of violent media often exhibit more violence is not useful in and of itself. Correlation does not equate to causation. In this case the question of the directionality of the causal link between consuming violent media and exhibiting violent behavior is of crucial importance: does consumption of violent media encourage violent behavior or are individuals predisposed to violent behavior more inclined to seek out and consume violent media. Now someone said: "this is called correlation. It’s a loose connection that proves nothing." That is entirely inaccurate. Correlation representates a statistical relationship between two variables. The finding of statistialy significant correlations is often of great importance in both social sciences and in medicine. It proves that variables are related. What it does not prove is that there is a causal relation between two variables.

In conclusion, i find that the reaction to these articles is problematic. Nobody here seems to want to engage the author's conclusions based upon their scientific merit. Just because you have not been influenced by violent games does not mean that the average person is not influenced by violent video games- just as the fact that a handful of violent individuals have been influenced by violent games does not mean that the average person is influenced by violent games.

In short, most of these responses are guilty of the same irrational, reactionary, logic of which they accuse opponents of violent video games. The science is on your side people- embrace it.

Isn't it obvious? If children didn't have video games to "train" on they would be learning to play baseball or pet kittens or read the bible. They would never EVER be inclined to play games cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, war (of any variety), or any other kind of imaginary game where they pretended to fight and/or kill their siblings and friends.

/sarcasm

umm...

im pretty sure that an arm cannon weighs way more than a wii mote, or any other weapon on wii games weigh more than 1.5 pounds

not to mention you cant just hop over to your nearest gunstore and buy a full length autofiring plazma cannon...

and in real life you cant press the control pad to execute a smash attack, and you cant charge a laser sword by shaking it anyway.

Don't forget about the correlation between shark attacks and ice cream. It has been shown that as ice cream sales rise, so do shark attacks. Now, this would seem to indicate one of two things. Either ice cream causes shark attacks, or shark attacks cause people to buy more ice cream.

The truth is that a correlation doesn't show anything. You see a connection, but since you are only looking at two factors, it is hard to see which is cause, which is effect, or if there is a third factor you aren't even seeing, for example the heat of the day. On a hot day, people are more likely to both buy ice cream and go swimming. On a day with more people swimming, it is more likely for shark attacks to be up. So there IS a connection between ice cream sales and shark attacks, but it isn't EITHER of the ones suggested by the previous statement.

For the brain scans, all they show is that the video games illiceted emotion. It would be a poor game that didn't. I was playing a game last night that nearly brought my wife to tears, Lost Odyssey. Obviously, a brain scan would show a difference between my wife looking at a blank white wall and my wife wipping tears from her eyes during a particularly emotional scene. However, what does that difference in brain scan show? Does that mean my wife was permenently and irreparably harmed by seeing that scene in my video game?

What you have fallen for is called psudeoscience. They show you graphs, charts, they quote statistics, and then they tell you want they want you to believe. You aren't qualified to draw a conclusion based on what they showed you, but you assume they are. You saw two pictures of what you were told were brain scans. You see they are different, and they tell you that different was bad. Did you see a third picture of a brainscan from someone who just watched the end of Old Yeller? Did you ASK to see such a picture? Did you even know that there may be other pictures that would be needed to form any sort of theory which could be worked towards a conclusion.

Then they state statistics and tell you there is a correlation. Do you KNOW what a correlation IS? You don't but you think that means a direct connection. It sounds TRUTHY. Have you DONE the research? Have you looked into the steadily declining youth violence since the release of video games? Do you realize that if you are grinding mobs for an epic mount you CAN'T be mugging someone? That being an achievment whore means you don't have time to be a real whore?

Get a degree in statistics, then come back and talk to us about correlations, mkay?

So we need to outlaw the chopping of firewood, because it is training our muscles to kill? And no more shooting guns at the range, because it is muscle memory for firing a rifle... oh wait, you really are firing a rifle at a range, no "simulation" there!

"What we need to do is give them the same information that’s provided on a can of food"
Like serving size and caloric content?

*Parent walks into room*

Parent: What are you playing?
Jimmy: Grand Theft Auto
Parent: Show me some.

*Jimmy proceeds to play*

Parent: Not suitable untill your older.

*Parent removes game from Jimmy*

ZOMG LIKE THAT WAS SO HARD AND JIMMY IS NO LONGER GOING TO GROW UP TO BECOME A HOMICIDAL MANIAC!!!!

[/rant]

"Although ESRB content descriptors are already listed on video game packaging, Dr. Rich called for additional labeling:" There IS labelling on the packaging, it's just that you have so many ignorant parents who don't read it and only buy the game so their kid will respect them. They give into pressure. If I had a kid who wanted an M rated game, I would clearly refuse and if they screamed at how they wanted it, I'd get some earplugs and let them scream their brains out.

Dr. Michael Rich thinking:
- Many popular violent video games today
- Wii requires motion to interact
There for
Violent games + Wii motion sensing = Murder trainer 4000

Truth:
- Not many violent video games are on the Wii
- Top selling Wii games are usually below rated M.
- Wii doesn't create or interpret advance motions well.

Dr. Michael Rich is assuming too much for the Wii.

Muscle memory?

using that rationale I should be able to churn butter like a madman....

Lets put every child in a cushioned room where they watch baby Einstein and eat apple sauce to protect them from the evil nasty world!!!


-.-

The Wii boxes already have half of it covered in warnings. Seriously, there's barely any room for screenshots of the game on the back. I don't think it needs anymore retarded warnings. Nintendo's overdone them as it is. BTW, DVD boxes don't have ANY content descriptors on them, and I don't see or hear anybody complaining about it.

@ DarknessDeku

"I don’t think anybody cares. It’s labeled as a kiddy system."

Yeah, by prepubescent 15-year-olds that think anything not M-rated is trash. Most everybody else sees it as FAMILY entertainment.

ummmm
rrriiiggghhhttt

Alright there are a couple of things I hate in this world:

1) Ignorant people

and...

2) Being talked done like I'm an idiot.

Muscle memory? If they're worried about that, then how dare they let their kids cook, because you can cut the meat, they're obviously training to kill a man with the knife. Let's not forget about kids either. Baseball, you're swinging a bat as hard as you can at a ball, that's training to teach you to bludgeon and kill people to death. Honestly, if only these people could hear themselves talk. Stop trying to take away my First Amendment rights why dont you.

Ok, I guess I didn't do a good job making clear how I feel about this stuff. If you read my full post (and i understand if you didn't, it was definitely tl;dr) you would know that I agree 100% with everyone here that these studies are flawed and that, after reviewing the research on media effects, I can say with 99% confidence that playing violent video games will not lead to an increase in violent behavior. I think that the conclusions of the author of this study are flawed and complete bunk. My only concern is that everyone here complains about bad research and sensationalism and what is their response to said research? "What a dumbass!! I play video games and i never hurt anyone!!!" Those arguements are everybit as weak as those made by the author. Actually those arguements are far weaker than those made by the author.

Someone mentioned that proof that video games don't cause violence is that he and his friends played violent video games growing up and they never hurt anyone. That isn't proof of anything. You and your friends make up what percent of the population? Now, were you to argue that millions of people grew up playing video games and never shot up a school- that is a significant finding. Now I won't say you can proove that video games don't lead to violence- because you can't proove things that way with science. But I am willing to say that I am just as confident that video games don't cause school shootings as i am to say that gravity keeps me from floating away from earth.

The problem is that nobody wants to engage these arguements on their merits. I'm not saying people have to. What concerns me is that nobody here seems to want to even consider the arguements opponents make. Such a lack of critical thinking is never good. You should all entertain the fact that maybe you are wrong- maybe video games do contribute to violent behavior. Again, based on everything i know- video games do not lead to long term violent behavior. I agree with everyone here- but not because i don't want to hear what the other side says, but because i have heard what the other side says, i have investigated it, and have come to the conclusion that the other side is wrong.

And as for this: "Get a degree in statistics, then come back and talk to us about correlations, mkay?" All i can say is lulz. Don't talk down to me. I'm no smarter than anyone here, but you sure as hell aren't smarter than me either. I'm a sociology grad student and I specialize in studies of online culture and video games. Believe me, i know the literature on media effects and i am well versed in the scant literature investigating links between video game violence and violent behavior. I know what i'm talking about on these things at least as well as anyone here. Again, i don't for a second think that i'm better or smarter than anyone here- but i won't be talked down to either.

One last note- on the correlation thing. I should have been more clear. Correlation can't actually "Proove" a connection between variables- but in the same way that science can't proove the existance of gravity. Correlation is a way of measureing the existence and strength of association between variables. And for all intensive purposes, when study after study finds correlation between two variables- you have prooved that those variables are related. I never said this means that you have also found a causal link. But finding that two variables are significantly correlated is a key step in investigating these things. Again, it's pretty clear to me that video games don't lead to violent behavior. And I know stats. To get higer degrees in Soc, you have to be trained in statistical analysis procedures. I'm studying this stuff. Just had an exam yesterday actually- covering stepwise and heirarchial OLS multiple regression models. I don't need a degree in statistics to speak to correlations... mmmmmkay.

Game content labelling could benefit from greater clarity. ESRB's is the best I've seen, but could be improved. Right now it says things like "Fantasy Violence" and "Mild Violence". What's what supposed to mean anyway? Well. The explanations are on the website. But it's still vague.

The PEGI system is worse. The content descriptors are a limited selection of seven icons, to indicate that, say, violence is present without further detail. That's the limitation of having a language-neutral system, I suppose.

An ideal system would explicitly list the violent acts that are in the game, e.g. setting people on fire, decapitation, firearms, makeshift pointy weapons, etc. So we don't have to rely on laughably arbitrary choices that say, for instance, burning people is less violent than shooting them. For some games the list could be quite long. Better make that a sticker that can be removed, so it doesn't ugly up the packaging.

@ Lovely

*Turns over his copy of The Orange Box*

Let's see here... it's rated M and it shows what the games contain. Like what they wanted...

I appear to have burst into flames!

Went I was little kids around around outside doing fake karate moves and pretending to be Power Rangers. Yet this violence inducing show is still on.

@ EmeraldDragon

Meh, that's only because Disney came along, took the cash cow, and gave it plastic surgery before regurgitating it out again.

Yes, i watch it every now and again, but mainly because i'm a fan of the japanese series that inspires it and it intrigues me to see what the American companies do with them.