Game Design and Effects on Society
by Demolishun · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 11/09/2006 (8:39 pm) · 61 replies
I just read two really good articles about how games affect society. I found them to both be very insightful, but I warn you one of them will probably make you mad.
The first one I read was:
"Virtually Alone" from a magazine called "Faith & Family". It described a person who literally has an addiction to video games to the detriment of his family, his job, his hygene and his health. The article described how his wife had lost he husband to video games and that he was irritable, angry, and would not eat for a day or two at a time. When I read this I was mad. I said to myself, "This guy is just an idiot and needs to grow up!". Then I realized I had some of the same issues at times when playing video games. I am always looking for that rush of a new mission and finally getting past that %@#$ing level! As I honestly looked at myself in the proverbial mirror I could see the signs of a mild addiction.
The second article was quite different:
"Serious Expectations" from a magazine called "Game Developer" describes the use of a game that allows a cancer patient to battle cancer cells in a virtual world. The result of the project found that those patients that had access to the cancer fighting game called: RE-MISSION did better than those that did not. This is ground breaking research of using simulated health problems to conquer real health problems. This example shows that video games have potential for doing great good for society.
So, what did I learn from reading these two articles. I learned that as designers we need to take into account that our goal of making money from a video game may be at odds at times with the well being of our audience. Putting in a feature that the user can adjust such as an alarm clock that shuts down the game for some number of hours. Or a feature that indicates they have played so many hours. Or a feature that allows the player to save their current position so they are not felt obligated to keep playing to get past a certain point in the game. This last one really hits home as some games really make me frustrated when a level is too long.
I also learned that through creativity we can affect society in a way we may never have dreamed. For instance, games that focus on puzzles overtly or in a more hidden way can enhance the thinking process. What about a game that challenges a player to face their "real" internal demons. This would have the potential for creating a relationship with the player that is so personal it could change their lives. How about a game that causes kids to want to get outside and ride a skateboard ( I have bought two skateboards since I started playing Tony Hawk games and I am 31 year old kid).
The point is we have a real chance to generate a whole new class of video games that CAN change the world for the better. These two articles are making me rethink all of my motivations for writing video games. I love to play them, I love to make them, and I would love to make someone elses life better for it.
Thanks,
Frank
The first one I read was:
"Virtually Alone" from a magazine called "Faith & Family". It described a person who literally has an addiction to video games to the detriment of his family, his job, his hygene and his health. The article described how his wife had lost he husband to video games and that he was irritable, angry, and would not eat for a day or two at a time. When I read this I was mad. I said to myself, "This guy is just an idiot and needs to grow up!". Then I realized I had some of the same issues at times when playing video games. I am always looking for that rush of a new mission and finally getting past that %@#$ing level! As I honestly looked at myself in the proverbial mirror I could see the signs of a mild addiction.
The second article was quite different:
"Serious Expectations" from a magazine called "Game Developer" describes the use of a game that allows a cancer patient to battle cancer cells in a virtual world. The result of the project found that those patients that had access to the cancer fighting game called: RE-MISSION did better than those that did not. This is ground breaking research of using simulated health problems to conquer real health problems. This example shows that video games have potential for doing great good for society.
So, what did I learn from reading these two articles. I learned that as designers we need to take into account that our goal of making money from a video game may be at odds at times with the well being of our audience. Putting in a feature that the user can adjust such as an alarm clock that shuts down the game for some number of hours. Or a feature that indicates they have played so many hours. Or a feature that allows the player to save their current position so they are not felt obligated to keep playing to get past a certain point in the game. This last one really hits home as some games really make me frustrated when a level is too long.
I also learned that through creativity we can affect society in a way we may never have dreamed. For instance, games that focus on puzzles overtly or in a more hidden way can enhance the thinking process. What about a game that challenges a player to face their "real" internal demons. This would have the potential for creating a relationship with the player that is so personal it could change their lives. How about a game that causes kids to want to get outside and ride a skateboard ( I have bought two skateboards since I started playing Tony Hawk games and I am 31 year old kid).
The point is we have a real chance to generate a whole new class of video games that CAN change the world for the better. These two articles are making me rethink all of my motivations for writing video games. I love to play them, I love to make them, and I would love to make someone elses life better for it.
Thanks,
Frank
About the author
I love programming, I love programming things that go click, whirr, boom. For organized T3D Links visit: http://demolishun.com/?page_id=67
#2
11/10/2006 (2:36 am)
That is a great write up. Thank you. I am an indie because I want to make meaningful games. 
#3
11/10/2006 (6:06 am)
Cool read.
#4
Though I really don't play video games that much now (usually a few hours per week except right after I get a good game), I played them all the time when I was young. The "killing" games were the ones I enjoyed the most, but I don't go out and kill people. I also never gave up food for playing video games. I actually have had some nutritrional problems in the past, but that wasn't when I was playing video games all the time. That was when I started eating cereal without any fiber in it.
People play games. They don't always play video games, but they do play games. Children especially play lots of games. There's probably something about the human body and mind that causes them to enjoy playing video games.
Many such games are violent. Chess is all about warfare (a.k.a. mass murder), but I don't see people wandering around trying to ban chess. Children sing a song about the black plague ("Ring around the roses"), but their parents encourage them to sing that song. Sports like football and boxing involve beating the stuffing out of people, but alot of people seem to complain more about playing a video game with simulated fighting than watching actual physical combat.
There is something about the human body and mind that causes them to indulge in violent behavior. I rather have them indulge in the fake violence of games than have some WWF lunatic decide to start body slamming people.
I don't know what it is about humans that makes us violent, but I read an article on the Internet yesterday that explains why men want to have sex. (Unfortunately, I can no longer find this article.) Men produce alot of semen. When the seminal vessel fills up, there has to be some way to get rid of it. So what happens is that a pathway of nerves fires from the seminal vessel to the brain, causing the production of more testerone. It turns out that testosterone makes men more likely to become aroused. So the solution for getting rid of the semen is for the man to want to have sex.
Just as playing violent games may be a substitute for killing people, masturbation is a substitue for sex. I don't think there's much of a difference here.
Women don't normally want to have sex as much for 2 reasons. First, they only produce 1 egg cell per month. Second, they have PMS anyways, which gets rid of the egg without having to have sex. So sexual impulses for women come from the brain, whereas sexual impulses for men come from the seminal vessel.
I guess when people say that men think with their penises, they aren't too far wrong.
My point is that the desire to play violent games may very well have some purpose. It may be vestigal to the human animal, but the desire to cause violence is still there. In fact, with the technologies that are being developed these days, sex may soon become an inefficient and outdated means of reproduction. Somehow, I don't think people will stop having sex either.
11/10/2006 (9:48 am)
I'm afraid I must object a little bit to the implication that "killing" games are somehow bad. I do admit that some people may become addicted to video games (just like some people become "addicted" to sex). I don't know anything about the cancer-fighting game, but positive thinking is often called some sort of miracle cure when actual medicine doesn't work.Though I really don't play video games that much now (usually a few hours per week except right after I get a good game), I played them all the time when I was young. The "killing" games were the ones I enjoyed the most, but I don't go out and kill people. I also never gave up food for playing video games. I actually have had some nutritrional problems in the past, but that wasn't when I was playing video games all the time. That was when I started eating cereal without any fiber in it.
People play games. They don't always play video games, but they do play games. Children especially play lots of games. There's probably something about the human body and mind that causes them to enjoy playing video games.
Many such games are violent. Chess is all about warfare (a.k.a. mass murder), but I don't see people wandering around trying to ban chess. Children sing a song about the black plague ("Ring around the roses"), but their parents encourage them to sing that song. Sports like football and boxing involve beating the stuffing out of people, but alot of people seem to complain more about playing a video game with simulated fighting than watching actual physical combat.
There is something about the human body and mind that causes them to indulge in violent behavior. I rather have them indulge in the fake violence of games than have some WWF lunatic decide to start body slamming people.
I don't know what it is about humans that makes us violent, but I read an article on the Internet yesterday that explains why men want to have sex. (Unfortunately, I can no longer find this article.) Men produce alot of semen. When the seminal vessel fills up, there has to be some way to get rid of it. So what happens is that a pathway of nerves fires from the seminal vessel to the brain, causing the production of more testerone. It turns out that testosterone makes men more likely to become aroused. So the solution for getting rid of the semen is for the man to want to have sex.
Just as playing violent games may be a substitute for killing people, masturbation is a substitue for sex. I don't think there's much of a difference here.
Women don't normally want to have sex as much for 2 reasons. First, they only produce 1 egg cell per month. Second, they have PMS anyways, which gets rid of the egg without having to have sex. So sexual impulses for women come from the brain, whereas sexual impulses for men come from the seminal vessel.
I guess when people say that men think with their penises, they aren't too far wrong.
My point is that the desire to play violent games may very well have some purpose. It may be vestigal to the human animal, but the desire to cause violence is still there. In fact, with the technologies that are being developed these days, sex may soon become an inefficient and outdated means of reproduction. Somehow, I don't think people will stop having sex either.
#5
I think I was with you up until the fifth or sixth paragraph. (I wish there was a smiley for 'confused').
Anyway, your point about chess as an abstraction of war reminded me of how comics are an abstraction also. Which in turn reminded me of Scott McCloud's execellent book Understanding Comics.
With all the talk of games and violence in the media and government, I really wish someone would make a similar book -- Understanding Videogames to shed light on this often misunderstood and villified artform. Maybe something like that could bring some sanity to the national discourse on games for entertainment as well as games for art, social change, education, etc., etc.
Just my two shekels.
11/10/2006 (10:12 am)
@StevenI think I was with you up until the fifth or sixth paragraph. (I wish there was a smiley for 'confused').
Anyway, your point about chess as an abstraction of war reminded me of how comics are an abstraction also. Which in turn reminded me of Scott McCloud's execellent book Understanding Comics.
With all the talk of games and violence in the media and government, I really wish someone would make a similar book -- Understanding Videogames to shed light on this often misunderstood and villified artform. Maybe something like that could bring some sanity to the national discourse on games for entertainment as well as games for art, social change, education, etc., etc.
Just my two shekels.
#6
However, you should consider this: Man kind has always been at odds with himself by design I believe. We are born like an animal, but are given an intellect and soul that allows us to transcend our animal behaviors. Legal systems are designed to contain basic animal tendencies in all humans. I think Steve tried to capture that we have those impulses right or wrong. Imagine if we constantly operated in a fight or flight mode like we tend to do in a stressful situation. Video games may have a roll in channeling our animal tendencies and help us learn to control when, not if, we express them. Expressing the animal side in a structured way can be good for you mentally.
Violence and sex in video games are not necessarily bad in a video game (are cheerleaders and football evil?). It is the intention behind including those elements and how they are included.
11/10/2006 (11:19 am)
You will notice that in the original post I stayed away from the topic of violence and sex in video games. If you are looking at the how a player is affected by your game then those two items will already be addressed at some level. For the most part those subjects will determine who can play your game based on age. Violence and sex have a place in society. We need to make babies to continue our species and very often someone wants what someone else has (either justly or unjustly). Inevitably they will show up in our media in some form. However, you should consider this: Man kind has always been at odds with himself by design I believe. We are born like an animal, but are given an intellect and soul that allows us to transcend our animal behaviors. Legal systems are designed to contain basic animal tendencies in all humans. I think Steve tried to capture that we have those impulses right or wrong. Imagine if we constantly operated in a fight or flight mode like we tend to do in a stressful situation. Video games may have a roll in channeling our animal tendencies and help us learn to control when, not if, we express them. Expressing the animal side in a structured way can be good for you mentally.
Violence and sex in video games are not necessarily bad in a video game (are cheerleaders and football evil?). It is the intention behind including those elements and how they are included.
#7
11/10/2006 (1:24 pm)
Yeah, if you hit on anything having to do with the negative aspects of sex and/or violence in a video game here, you'll quickly get drowned out. ;)
#8
Second is there any evidence that FPS games increase violence in people who play them? no not at all and several studies have attempted to prove this. Are there now a LOT of studies that have all come to the same end result of which is playing video games increases brain power? YES! They have shown that fps increase people's reaction time immensly, enough that when they attempted to adminster the same test to people who play fps regularly and people who don't play video games it couldn't be done. If the test was easy enough for people who didn't play video games to show result on a scale the people who did play scored high off the charts and if they did it the opposite the people who didn't play scored low off the charts. They have shown how games like tetris increase IQ. These are alls tudies available and have been published in lots of very respectable magazines, if people need some quotes I can try and dig out the last one I read if I still have it.
Thirdly there have been articles written by people who don't know any better that say mmorpgs are the downfall of society and willc ause everyone to become a shut in and become fat slobs. Is there any evidence to this? nope there is evidence in the studies mentioned earlier that is the opposite. They've shown that people who play a lot of mmorpg style games interact with society outside of their house in a much better manner then the average person who does not play. And they've shown that people who manage guilds and communities in online mmorpgs make better managers at companies then people who don't.
There are many groups that have learned of the incredble tool video games are and how vastly a variety of them can increase brain power that they are working on ways to work video games into classrooms at school because they believe it will increase the students learning potential.
Will there always be people who hate video games without any real evidence at all? Will they make up stories and hate campaigns just because in their mind video games are evil and they've never played one? Yes. There will always be people who hate technology in any form, entertainment or commercial or even educational. And they will always write articles without any actual proof at all. The only good thing about this is I think there are enough intelligent people that can read such articles and stop and ask questions of ok, what proof is there, how was this study done, was it made to prove a point or was it truly an indepndant study, etc etc.
That's my rant
11/12/2006 (10:11 am)
This is a hot topic for a lot of people anyways, but there's the ability to look at evidence and not just guessing. First are there people who are addicted to video game, yes a small percentage, are there people addicted to TV gambling shopping sex etc etc etc. Everything in the world can be addicted there's people addicted to their jobs. So using one guy's addiction as an arguement against a lot of video games is poor. Second is there any evidence that FPS games increase violence in people who play them? no not at all and several studies have attempted to prove this. Are there now a LOT of studies that have all come to the same end result of which is playing video games increases brain power? YES! They have shown that fps increase people's reaction time immensly, enough that when they attempted to adminster the same test to people who play fps regularly and people who don't play video games it couldn't be done. If the test was easy enough for people who didn't play video games to show result on a scale the people who did play scored high off the charts and if they did it the opposite the people who didn't play scored low off the charts. They have shown how games like tetris increase IQ. These are alls tudies available and have been published in lots of very respectable magazines, if people need some quotes I can try and dig out the last one I read if I still have it.
Thirdly there have been articles written by people who don't know any better that say mmorpgs are the downfall of society and willc ause everyone to become a shut in and become fat slobs. Is there any evidence to this? nope there is evidence in the studies mentioned earlier that is the opposite. They've shown that people who play a lot of mmorpg style games interact with society outside of their house in a much better manner then the average person who does not play. And they've shown that people who manage guilds and communities in online mmorpgs make better managers at companies then people who don't.
There are many groups that have learned of the incredble tool video games are and how vastly a variety of them can increase brain power that they are working on ways to work video games into classrooms at school because they believe it will increase the students learning potential.
Will there always be people who hate video games without any real evidence at all? Will they make up stories and hate campaigns just because in their mind video games are evil and they've never played one? Yes. There will always be people who hate technology in any form, entertainment or commercial or even educational. And they will always write articles without any actual proof at all. The only good thing about this is I think there are enough intelligent people that can read such articles and stop and ask questions of ok, what proof is there, how was this study done, was it made to prove a point or was it truly an indepndant study, etc etc.
That's my rant
#9
Will there always be people who defend video games blindly without any real evidence at all? Absolutely. ;)
11/12/2006 (8:26 pm)
Quote:Will there always be people who hate video games without any real evidence at all?Will they make up stories and hate campaigns just because in their mind video games are evil and they've never played one?
Will there always be people who defend video games blindly without any real evidence at all? Absolutely. ;)
#10
Much the same as all other issues, such as sex, and abortion, and capital punishment...the arguments about controversial issues are more inflammatory than the issues themselves more often than not. People who support both sides are right--given variable circumstances.
Personally, I am not in the game design hobby to make another kill-'em-all game. Not because I want to avoid corrupting the world's youths, but because I am tired of them. Shooters are a dime a dozen. Which isn't to say that violence doesn't have a place, but it should not be the centerpiece of a game's system. I find it funny that so much research time has been spent on new ways that we can make people look like they are dying realistically, but artificial social interaction seems to have stagnated.
I am still brainstorming game design ideas, but I know, that if games are ever going to be respected as the true art that they are, the focus will need to shift from just action-junkies and transcend into something that even the most jaded Luddites will have no choice but to accept. I assent that I may not be the person to do it, but I am going to do my best to make something that contributes to society, not further generalizes it.
11/12/2006 (9:07 pm)
It is all the same. People arguing about whether games do or do not cause violence are more likely than those who play video games are to spark conflict. The fact is that everything works on a case-by-case basis, but societal nature is to generalize and make assumptions. Yes, I believe that violent video games cause some people to have violent tendencies. Then there are people who could sit through hours without any negative effects.Much the same as all other issues, such as sex, and abortion, and capital punishment...the arguments about controversial issues are more inflammatory than the issues themselves more often than not. People who support both sides are right--given variable circumstances.
Personally, I am not in the game design hobby to make another kill-'em-all game. Not because I want to avoid corrupting the world's youths, but because I am tired of them. Shooters are a dime a dozen. Which isn't to say that violence doesn't have a place, but it should not be the centerpiece of a game's system. I find it funny that so much research time has been spent on new ways that we can make people look like they are dying realistically, but artificial social interaction seems to have stagnated.
I am still brainstorming game design ideas, but I know, that if games are ever going to be respected as the true art that they are, the focus will need to shift from just action-junkies and transcend into something that even the most jaded Luddites will have no choice but to accept. I assent that I may not be the person to do it, but I am going to do my best to make something that contributes to society, not further generalizes it.
#11
I yell at my family more when I am playing video games, even if they are non-violent. This is especially true when I am not winning and I just "have" to win. But hey, that doesn't mean I have a problem every body else is doing it. : ) The motivation of this post was to convey the insights I had after reading the two articles.
However, if you would like me to make derogatory comments about violent video games then here goes: "Violent video games are scary and give me nightmares. I cry under my covers for hours. Why does id Software have to make Doom so scary? I got angry and tried to shoot somebody with my plasma rifle, only to find out they do not exist. Sniff...". There you go, I officially have made my complaint with violent video games. Flame away... Wait, somebody already did, woohoo! Thank you for validating my existence. I digress...
The point of the post was not about any one type of element in video games. The point is that we DO have a responsibility to our consumers. Most other industries have lots of help from Big Brother to keep them responsible. So, looking out for the welfare of our consumers is actually looking out for us as well. Right now game ratings are optional. Wait till someone passes a bill making it mandatory. How much will it cost to get a certified rating? How much does it cost to get a movie rated?
11/12/2006 (9:57 pm)
J Sears,I yell at my family more when I am playing video games, even if they are non-violent. This is especially true when I am not winning and I just "have" to win. But hey, that doesn't mean I have a problem every body else is doing it. : ) The motivation of this post was to convey the insights I had after reading the two articles.
However, if you would like me to make derogatory comments about violent video games then here goes: "Violent video games are scary and give me nightmares. I cry under my covers for hours. Why does id Software have to make Doom so scary? I got angry and tried to shoot somebody with my plasma rifle, only to find out they do not exist. Sniff...". There you go, I officially have made my complaint with violent video games. Flame away... Wait, somebody already did, woohoo! Thank you for validating my existence. I digress...
The point of the post was not about any one type of element in video games. The point is that we DO have a responsibility to our consumers. Most other industries have lots of help from Big Brother to keep them responsible. So, looking out for the welfare of our consumers is actually looking out for us as well. Right now game ratings are optional. Wait till someone passes a bill making it mandatory. How much will it cost to get a certified rating? How much does it cost to get a movie rated?
#12
11/13/2006 (2:25 am)
I've been thinking about this topic of responsibility as game developers and I've got an opinion. It's games we are talking about. Nobody takes games seriously. No adult. No kid. No nerd. Nobody. The only responsibility that game developers have is to make games that are not P.O.S. That's my opinion. With one exception: games that are not made to be fun but rather to promote some kind of religious or political agenda. Those games are an offense to me as both a gamer and game developer. I find that free Army game to be the biggest waste of tax payer money. I find that Left Behind game to be not only a POS but also the first game I've ever felt that violence in a game could actually influence anyone to be violent. Actually, both of those games are meant to lead to violence in real life. THOSE are the few games which by the way are NOT ever the type of game any game developer wants to make, that are irresponsible. IMO.
#13
There are soccer fans in countries who kill over what team someone likes, does this mean soccer causes violence? does this mean soccer should be regulated and maybe soccer shirts be banned to protect people? No it means there are lunatics in this world, and there are bad parents in this world
I can't comment on Left Behind have never even seen a screen shot of it let alone play it but I can comment on Americas Army which is the game Anton was refering to. First off the Army has a recruiting budget I'd rather have a free game from it then more tv commercials. Second how does that game lead to violence in real life? they programmed it so no matter which side your on your the army and the other side is terrorists, how does this instill violence any more then battlefield series where you shoot at both sides?? To say that leads to violence in real life is to say that all the soldiers in Iraq enjoy killing people, I was in the military for 6 years and no the vast majority of people do not enjoy taking life. Once again is there a small percentage of lunatics who do enjoy it, yes.
I'm not flaming people as a sensitve person suggested, I'm pointing out the other sides to the arguement which is something that should be expected. I just don't want people saying opinions as fact. Can you think video games cause violence of course you can, can you say for a fact they do? No, where's your proof. And if your proof is that you get angry when you play video games that isn't proof. If you do a well balanced study that shows that playing video games causes any more anger or violence then most other common acts as watching a movie, watching sports, playing sports, playing a board/card game. Then you can have proof. Some people are competitve and get upset to lose anything no matter how trivial it is, so yes those competitve people will be cranky when they're losing online too.
And frank I can see the perspective of trying to change video games before legislation sets in, as a way of saving costs to game makers. It's a valid thought and will legislation one day be stronger I'm sure it will be. I would disagree with you just out of personal opinion on that one, but like I said it's a much more valid arguement then most of this thread.
11/13/2006 (7:11 am)
@ eric like I talked of in my post there is lots of evidence to support the positive effects of all types of video games this includes 3d shooters. There are no studies that have any proof of the negative effects of video games. So I am not mindlessly defending them. If a parent raises their kid poorly that he get angry at others when he is losing then the parent will quickly say look at what video games cause as opposed to realising they failed to instill any type of positive attitude competition and it's probably likely this child would get angry with others when losing at sports as well.There are soccer fans in countries who kill over what team someone likes, does this mean soccer causes violence? does this mean soccer should be regulated and maybe soccer shirts be banned to protect people? No it means there are lunatics in this world, and there are bad parents in this world
I can't comment on Left Behind have never even seen a screen shot of it let alone play it but I can comment on Americas Army which is the game Anton was refering to. First off the Army has a recruiting budget I'd rather have a free game from it then more tv commercials. Second how does that game lead to violence in real life? they programmed it so no matter which side your on your the army and the other side is terrorists, how does this instill violence any more then battlefield series where you shoot at both sides?? To say that leads to violence in real life is to say that all the soldiers in Iraq enjoy killing people, I was in the military for 6 years and no the vast majority of people do not enjoy taking life. Once again is there a small percentage of lunatics who do enjoy it, yes.
I'm not flaming people as a sensitve person suggested, I'm pointing out the other sides to the arguement which is something that should be expected. I just don't want people saying opinions as fact. Can you think video games cause violence of course you can, can you say for a fact they do? No, where's your proof. And if your proof is that you get angry when you play video games that isn't proof. If you do a well balanced study that shows that playing video games causes any more anger or violence then most other common acts as watching a movie, watching sports, playing sports, playing a board/card game. Then you can have proof. Some people are competitve and get upset to lose anything no matter how trivial it is, so yes those competitve people will be cranky when they're losing online too.
And frank I can see the perspective of trying to change video games before legislation sets in, as a way of saving costs to game makers. It's a valid thought and will legislation one day be stronger I'm sure it will be. I would disagree with you just out of personal opinion on that one, but like I said it's a much more valid arguement then most of this thread.
#14
The point of my post was that male humans have an actual biological thing-a-majiger that makes them want to have sex when they haven't had sex recently enough. Bizarrely, it's all about getting rid of the semen because there's nowhere else for it to go.
Obviously, sex is essential for the propagation of the species, but that article explains an actual biological mechanism that makes us want sex.
Steroids are essentially testosterone and cause "roid rage". There always seem to be more males committing violent crimes on the news. Maybe males (or potentially both genders) just have a "need" for violence because it was useful to the human race earlier in our development. A few centuries ago, I would probably have spent part of my time hunting deer or something because I needed the meat to avoid starving. Being violent was useful, particularly before guns became common.
There's no sack of evil in the body that fills up and then causes people to go on killing sprees, but there may be something relevant that I just don't know about. Any tendency might be psychological, but even then it might be a mechanism for the survival of the species.
If my need for violence can be satisfied by simulated killing, that's great. Making legislation to keep people from pretending to kill people or have sex is just stupid. What are they going to do next? Cut off kids' index fingers so they can't use them to have pretend gun fights?
11/13/2006 (3:28 pm)
I found the article I mentioned previously: http://www.mensconfraternity.org.au/?page=p79 .The point of my post was that male humans have an actual biological thing-a-majiger that makes them want to have sex when they haven't had sex recently enough. Bizarrely, it's all about getting rid of the semen because there's nowhere else for it to go.
Obviously, sex is essential for the propagation of the species, but that article explains an actual biological mechanism that makes us want sex.
Steroids are essentially testosterone and cause "roid rage". There always seem to be more males committing violent crimes on the news. Maybe males (or potentially both genders) just have a "need" for violence because it was useful to the human race earlier in our development. A few centuries ago, I would probably have spent part of my time hunting deer or something because I needed the meat to avoid starving. Being violent was useful, particularly before guns became common.
There's no sack of evil in the body that fills up and then causes people to go on killing sprees, but there may be something relevant that I just don't know about. Any tendency might be psychological, but even then it might be a mechanism for the survival of the species.
If my need for violence can be satisfied by simulated killing, that's great. Making legislation to keep people from pretending to kill people or have sex is just stupid. What are they going to do next? Cut off kids' index fingers so they can't use them to have pretend gun fights?
#15
My parents are bad parents, they spanked me when I did bad things. Seriously though, I think I understand your perspective better. I find it good that someone with a service record who may have actually had to take a life for real would see the irony of blaming a symptom. For instance, the Columbine Trantrum was an good example of a group of children that played violent video games and even told people they were planning to shoot some people while chatting inside Quake. Now, like you said, did the video game make them do it? No. It could not have possibly been the fact that they were all on psychotropic drugs from when they were very young, both parents worked a job, the children were unsupervised from 3 to 7 every evening, and they were given money and things instead of love. Fact, most children are placed on psychotropic drugs at the bequest of thier school teacher. Conjecture, it is so much easier if Joey stares out into space (despite internal raging emotions) than learn how all humans have learned until this century that if you act out you get smacked. This is so not PC anymore is it kids. Like Sears said, you can't blame a symptom for the cause.
Bursch,
I take games seriously. That is what caused me to post this is the first place. Fire departments, NASA, doctors, National Laboratories, etc. are starting to take games seriously (at least the technology). That is why I am here. Maybe what I am not grasping is are games supposed to be free of agendas? Are you saying we can't make a fun product if it promotes any kind of idealogy? Have you ever read A Connecticut Yankey in King Arthur's Court? Very entertaining, but the agenda was to criticize the elite of Europe for taunting Samuel Clemens about how superior a feudal society is to a democratic society.
I did a quick browse and there seems to be two camps around the Left Behind game. One camp claims the game is all about killing and portraying Christians in a non-christian manner and the other talks about there being consequences for doing evil. For instance if a Christian force kills too many people they defect to the evil side. To me it sounds very interesting in that they hope to cause discussion about enternity. I have often wondered how to address conflict such as warfare but still try to balance a Christian agenda.
Back to the topic, there is nothing wrong with protraying an agenda. If you read the FAQ on the website for Left Behind you will see that they sound just like normal game designers in their approach. Except, one of the criteria was to somehow incorporate End of the World type stuff but allow a player to be Christian or Antichrist. Do you object to their interpretation of Christian or object to the violence? Or how about objecting to a world where there is right and wrong and a God? Do games that promote positive agendas conflict with a god-less theme of most games? Is there even an agenda in video games? Is the lack of one why people do not take them seriously? Maybe the best question is this: Do you think we are not accountable for our actions in a biblical sense?
In my opinion any theme or agenda should be overt and out in the open. Rather than unfocused and souless.
Steve,
We ARE animal, but we can control ourselves. I cannot say it is easy, God knows that, but it is possible. If I catered to my animal more often than not, I can say there would be a lot of dead people, a lot of bastard children, and a lot of flat tires. I do not subscribe to the "feel good" nature of a lot of society.
Besides I am not talking about legislature to control content, but how it is distributed. Right now we have a volunteer ratings system. It serves a good purpose and I hope it continues. However, if developers abuse that trust to often it will no longer be voluntary.
Cheers
11/13/2006 (8:01 pm)
J Sears, My parents are bad parents, they spanked me when I did bad things. Seriously though, I think I understand your perspective better. I find it good that someone with a service record who may have actually had to take a life for real would see the irony of blaming a symptom. For instance, the Columbine Trantrum was an good example of a group of children that played violent video games and even told people they were planning to shoot some people while chatting inside Quake. Now, like you said, did the video game make them do it? No. It could not have possibly been the fact that they were all on psychotropic drugs from when they were very young, both parents worked a job, the children were unsupervised from 3 to 7 every evening, and they were given money and things instead of love. Fact, most children are placed on psychotropic drugs at the bequest of thier school teacher. Conjecture, it is so much easier if Joey stares out into space (despite internal raging emotions) than learn how all humans have learned until this century that if you act out you get smacked. This is so not PC anymore is it kids. Like Sears said, you can't blame a symptom for the cause.
Bursch,
I take games seriously. That is what caused me to post this is the first place. Fire departments, NASA, doctors, National Laboratories, etc. are starting to take games seriously (at least the technology). That is why I am here. Maybe what I am not grasping is are games supposed to be free of agendas? Are you saying we can't make a fun product if it promotes any kind of idealogy? Have you ever read A Connecticut Yankey in King Arthur's Court? Very entertaining, but the agenda was to criticize the elite of Europe for taunting Samuel Clemens about how superior a feudal society is to a democratic society.
I did a quick browse and there seems to be two camps around the Left Behind game. One camp claims the game is all about killing and portraying Christians in a non-christian manner and the other talks about there being consequences for doing evil. For instance if a Christian force kills too many people they defect to the evil side. To me it sounds very interesting in that they hope to cause discussion about enternity. I have often wondered how to address conflict such as warfare but still try to balance a Christian agenda.
Back to the topic, there is nothing wrong with protraying an agenda. If you read the FAQ on the website for Left Behind you will see that they sound just like normal game designers in their approach. Except, one of the criteria was to somehow incorporate End of the World type stuff but allow a player to be Christian or Antichrist. Do you object to their interpretation of Christian or object to the violence? Or how about objecting to a world where there is right and wrong and a God? Do games that promote positive agendas conflict with a god-less theme of most games? Is there even an agenda in video games? Is the lack of one why people do not take them seriously? Maybe the best question is this: Do you think we are not accountable for our actions in a biblical sense?
In my opinion any theme or agenda should be overt and out in the open. Rather than unfocused and souless.
Steve,
We ARE animal, but we can control ourselves. I cannot say it is easy, God knows that, but it is possible. If I catered to my animal more often than not, I can say there would be a lot of dead people, a lot of bastard children, and a lot of flat tires. I do not subscribe to the "feel good" nature of a lot of society.
Besides I am not talking about legislature to control content, but how it is distributed. Right now we have a volunteer ratings system. It serves a good purpose and I hope it continues. However, if developers abuse that trust to often it will no longer be voluntary.
Cheers
#16
As for the Left Behind game... the Left Behind game is all kinds of wrong... in my opinion. I'm coming from the perspective of someone who knows EXACTLY what the agenda of those books and movies and the game is. I was in that world of ministers and I'll tell you, some people involved at some stages of the franchise may mean well enough, but it's mostly a cash cow.
11/13/2006 (9:24 pm)
What I meant by 'taking games seriously' is that nobody confuses a game with real life. They don't take the violence in games seriously. And games are not a 'gateway' violence that leads to real life violence such as sadistic killers who started out with killing animals.As for the Left Behind game... the Left Behind game is all kinds of wrong... in my opinion. I'm coming from the perspective of someone who knows EXACTLY what the agenda of those books and movies and the game is. I was in that world of ministers and I'll tell you, some people involved at some stages of the franchise may mean well enough, but it's mostly a cash cow.
#17
Why is it wrong to make money off of religious beliefs? If stories and games of the end of the world fascinate people then that's what they enjoy.
And if you are really looking for a game to push the point of being wrong (nothing like giving people more ammo to try and use against video games but here ya go) you should check out the game postal, the original was a top down game but then they recreated it as a 3d game. It didn't have any advertising probably because nobody wanted to let them advertise it but I bought the 3d one because I had played the top down one when I was younger.
The whole premise of the game is your a psychopath who thinks the world is full of evil and must stop that evil so he kills innocent people (the first game the top down each level was complete when you killed a certain percentage of the people on the map, innocents and cops trying to stop you)
In the 3d one you can kill anyone you go by, you can even pee on them. You can pour gas on people and light them on fire ( you can then pee on them to put them out if your nice) There are missions in the game (all involve killing people) but it's also open ended so you can run around all day killing and torturing innocent people. They even have one mission where you get in the top floor of the library find a sniper rifle behind a bookcase and snipe a guy in a motorcade (remind you of something)
So yes the game is nothing but violence, and sure they could say they were just trying to show you what the mind of a psychopath was. But in the end it's to make money. Do i think it's wrong of them to release such a product? No that's the whole point of freedom, and as long as parents are good they'll handle what their kids see and don't see, and adults should be able to handle whatever they choose to play.
11/14/2006 (6:29 am)
I'm sure there are a couple people who thinks games are real life but they see pink elephants too.Why is it wrong to make money off of religious beliefs? If stories and games of the end of the world fascinate people then that's what they enjoy.
And if you are really looking for a game to push the point of being wrong (nothing like giving people more ammo to try and use against video games but here ya go) you should check out the game postal, the original was a top down game but then they recreated it as a 3d game. It didn't have any advertising probably because nobody wanted to let them advertise it but I bought the 3d one because I had played the top down one when I was younger.
The whole premise of the game is your a psychopath who thinks the world is full of evil and must stop that evil so he kills innocent people (the first game the top down each level was complete when you killed a certain percentage of the people on the map, innocents and cops trying to stop you)
In the 3d one you can kill anyone you go by, you can even pee on them. You can pour gas on people and light them on fire ( you can then pee on them to put them out if your nice) There are missions in the game (all involve killing people) but it's also open ended so you can run around all day killing and torturing innocent people. They even have one mission where you get in the top floor of the library find a sniper rifle behind a bookcase and snipe a guy in a motorcade (remind you of something)
So yes the game is nothing but violence, and sure they could say they were just trying to show you what the mind of a psychopath was. But in the end it's to make money. Do i think it's wrong of them to release such a product? No that's the whole point of freedom, and as long as parents are good they'll handle what their kids see and don't see, and adults should be able to handle whatever they choose to play.
#18
Are you serious? You can't be serious.
The point is that they don't think it's fantasy. And they swallow hook line and sinker anything they are told to believe just like little children. And like children, they learn more by what they are shown than by what they are told. Kill the sinners, it's O.K. because they are sinners.
In case you forgot, we are in a war with people who think we are of the devil who we think are of the devil and we're both pretty ok with killing each other because of it. By we, I don't mean literally you and I and everyone in the US and Iraq. But I mean many of the people involved at the most important levels. And of course in the end, behind the mask of religioun that is the excuse to kill, it's all about money.
The Left Behind game... it might as well be called The Nazis are Good Guys game. It's propeganda and it's based on fear and ignorance and it teaches that 'some' people are ok to kill because they aren't in your belief system. Of course, of course, don't kill 'too' many or you become a bad person. Ahhhhh, how sweet of them to throw that in the mix for the people who might question why you are playing a christian at the end fo the world who is running around killing sinners... don't kill 'too' many and you a still ok. Great. Just wonderful.
11/14/2006 (1:32 pm)
I've played Postal 2. It's an absurd game... it's harmless and disgusting fantasy, because everyone knows that we'll never get rid of Gary Coleman that easy. Personally, I hated playing the game for the short time I played the demo. But it's clearly fantasy.Quote:Why is it wrong to make money off of religious beliefs?
Are you serious? You can't be serious.
Quote:If stories and games of the end of the world fascinate people then that's what they enjoy.
The point is that they don't think it's fantasy. And they swallow hook line and sinker anything they are told to believe just like little children. And like children, they learn more by what they are shown than by what they are told. Kill the sinners, it's O.K. because they are sinners.
In case you forgot, we are in a war with people who think we are of the devil who we think are of the devil and we're both pretty ok with killing each other because of it. By we, I don't mean literally you and I and everyone in the US and Iraq. But I mean many of the people involved at the most important levels. And of course in the end, behind the mask of religioun that is the excuse to kill, it's all about money.
The Left Behind game... it might as well be called The Nazis are Good Guys game. It's propeganda and it's based on fear and ignorance and it teaches that 'some' people are ok to kill because they aren't in your belief system. Of course, of course, don't kill 'too' many or you become a bad person. Ahhhhh, how sweet of them to throw that in the mix for the people who might question why you are playing a christian at the end fo the world who is running around killing sinners... don't kill 'too' many and you a still ok. Great. Just wonderful.
#19
This all goes to intent. There are some really scary groups out there and they do have such agendas as you described, but you really can't pick and choose who gets to do what. If their agenda bothers you so much make a game that is a parody. Like the spoof someone made about the deer hunting game. My own belief is that the deer hunting game was fine, and the one that was a parody is funded by the completely clueless. However it is a good idea if you don't like something. Maybe a parody for the Lef Behind is to tell the truth of the agenda. Don't steal any IP, but make the story very close and bring it to its ultimate conclussion as you see it. We need more serious titles like that. This is a new media and it can be used to reach people not just the pocket book.
BTW, we just had a guy get back from Iraq. He talked about what was going on and I was amazed at what is not shown on TV. When he got there he was absolutely convinced that everybody there hated him based on what TV showed. His first experience with an Iraqi civilian was on old man that walked up to him and said to him in English, "I love George Bush.". The guy may not even know another English word, but felt it was very important for him to know those words. The soldier told me nearly every mission is side by side with Iraqi soldiers. The media by policy, does not go on "those" missions even when invited. Women will stop in the street and thank the soldiers and will take their hoods off. One woman did so that she could have her picture taken and held up her finger with ink on it to show she had voted. Children run after the tanks in the streets looking for candy. The soldiers teach the Iraqis about more sanitary ways to cook food and serve the food. The media will tell you that the effort can't even bring clean water to the people. That is true, because the insurgents keep blowing up the pipelines near the water so the oil will mix with it. I guess this is not just a war against the infidel soldiers.
I would be more afraid of what the media is trying to sell you than the Left Behind game. Also, not every religon is about killing. What I thought was interesting about the Left Behind was the way they approached the mechanics, I have no real understanding about who they are.
11/15/2006 (7:25 pm)
Anton,This all goes to intent. There are some really scary groups out there and they do have such agendas as you described, but you really can't pick and choose who gets to do what. If their agenda bothers you so much make a game that is a parody. Like the spoof someone made about the deer hunting game. My own belief is that the deer hunting game was fine, and the one that was a parody is funded by the completely clueless. However it is a good idea if you don't like something. Maybe a parody for the Lef Behind is to tell the truth of the agenda. Don't steal any IP, but make the story very close and bring it to its ultimate conclussion as you see it. We need more serious titles like that. This is a new media and it can be used to reach people not just the pocket book.
BTW, we just had a guy get back from Iraq. He talked about what was going on and I was amazed at what is not shown on TV. When he got there he was absolutely convinced that everybody there hated him based on what TV showed. His first experience with an Iraqi civilian was on old man that walked up to him and said to him in English, "I love George Bush.". The guy may not even know another English word, but felt it was very important for him to know those words. The soldier told me nearly every mission is side by side with Iraqi soldiers. The media by policy, does not go on "those" missions even when invited. Women will stop in the street and thank the soldiers and will take their hoods off. One woman did so that she could have her picture taken and held up her finger with ink on it to show she had voted. Children run after the tanks in the streets looking for candy. The soldiers teach the Iraqis about more sanitary ways to cook food and serve the food. The media will tell you that the effort can't even bring clean water to the people. That is true, because the insurgents keep blowing up the pipelines near the water so the oil will mix with it. I guess this is not just a war against the infidel soldiers.
I would be more afraid of what the media is trying to sell you than the Left Behind game. Also, not every religon is about killing. What I thought was interesting about the Left Behind was the way they approached the mechanics, I have no real understanding about who they are.
#20
My brother in law just left Iraq. He was the guy at the back of humvees who's job it was to shoot rockets at aircraft. Yeah. He might as well have had a target on him. Anyway, like I said, I'm not saying that Iraq doesn't want us there... I'm saying that the fight is coming from people who are using religion as a way to get wealth and as an excuse for killing.
11/15/2006 (8:35 pm)
I'm not against the games being legal to be made.... just saying that if there are games that do have a responsibility to the public beyond quality that it is the political and religious games.My brother in law just left Iraq. He was the guy at the back of humvees who's job it was to shoot rockets at aircraft. Yeah. He might as well have had a target on him. Anyway, like I said, I'm not saying that Iraq doesn't want us there... I'm saying that the fight is coming from people who are using religion as a way to get wealth and as an excuse for killing.
Torque Owner Gustavo Munoz