Are video games harmful?

[Primula Baggins]

I would be surprised if something similar didn't happen to someone who had seen a lot of violent acts in films or video games, the first time they saw one in real life.

I'm sure this is different person by person, and I very much doubt any generalizations one way or the other. When I watched the World Trade Center towers fall (live on CNN) I knew right off the bat that I wasn't watching a movie stunt. That's my example of this being person by person. I'm sure others had other reactions.

But you knew you were watching television news, TED. I was talking about seeing something in real life and taking a moment to realize that it was real. Perhaps that wouldn't happen to some people, but you do hear those comments from people who witness accidents and disasters—even from some who saw the plane hit the second tower in real life on September 11.

I mention this not because I think we can or should do anything about it, but because I think it's relevant to the argument some of us are making about children possibly becoming numbed to violence by seeing it in games and movies. It may not happen to everyone, but it happens.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

As more of the example, I spent the entire time those towers fell saying "buildings don't do that."

I think it's still person by person. The keyword is possibly. You can't say for sure that child A will become numbed to violence after playing too many video games with any sort of certainty.

[Primula Baggins]

But if child A is my child, then because it's a possibility, I won't risk it.

All child A loses by that is a few years of playing a small subset of video games and seeing a single category of movies.

[Alatar]

An interesting sidebar to this discussion.

Rockstar Games, who make the notorious GTA games recently announced a new game called "Bullies" and the reaction was, predictably, major.

Bully gets picked on in the House of Commons
Thursday 27-Oct-2005 2:52 PM MP Keith Vaz is concerned over Rockstar game where "players are encouraged to kick and punch other schoolchildren".

A report on the BBC detailed yesterday in the House of Commons, where former Labour minister Keith Vaz urged the government to refer Rockstar's Bully to the British Board of Film Classification.

Concerned that players would be encouraged to beat up school kids and possibly mimic their onscreen antics offscreen, Vaz asked Commons Leader Geoff Hoon, "Will you ask the prime minister to refer this video to the British Board of Film Classification? If they don't make any changes will the government use its powers to ban this video?"

Hm, well while it's a game rather than a video, Mr Hoon reponded by saying that whilst the contents of the game did sound 'disturbing', the effect that they might have on young players were as yet, 'not known'.

Currently, the game's distributors have not yet filed it for classification but a spokesperson for 'Bullying Online' - a British Anti-bullying organisation said that "[Bullying] is not a suitable subject for computer games," wisely adding that "Giving Bully an 18-rating would not stop children playing it".

Rockstar responded by saying, "We support and admire the groups who are working hard to address the long-standing problem of bullying. We all have different opinions about art and entertainment, but everyone agrees that real-life school violence is a serious issue which lacks easy answers. Bully is still a work-in-progress, but when it's finished we believe most people will agree it offers an exciting experience and tells an engaging story. More and more people are beginning to recognise that the stories in video games have as many themes and plotlines as books and movies. Just as books aren't judged by their covers, video games shouldn't be judged by their titles or individual scenes."

Vaz is no stranger to controversial games, having been involved with the investigation behind Stefan Pakeerah's murder in 2004, the very murder blamed initially on a copy of Manhunt and later dismissed as the game was found to belong to the victim and not the killer.

Bully has been put back for release to an unknown time next year.

We've approached Rockstar for additional thoughts but received a "no comment" at time of going to press. We'll be following this story and will bring you more as it breaks.

It turns out that the game is about defending yourself from Bullies, not about being one:

A kick in the nuts: New Bully info
Monday 14-Aug-2006 12:15 PM Swift boots to the nadgers and more revealed as Rockstar's latest hits the playground

New details on Rockstar's playground actioner Bully have emerged, courtesy of an article appearing on MTV.com.

Revealed in the article is Bully's pro-nerd gameplay, which has you performing tasks for the four 'non-bully' factions in Bullworth Academy, the fictional school where the game takes place.

The nerds, preppies, jocks and greasers will all need your help combating Bullworth's teenage hoodlums, after which you'll gain brownie points with their faction and they'll help you out around campus, rugby-tackling your foes and hopefully performing a 'bundle' or too.

Other missions put you in school lessons, managing beakers in chemistry class and other education-related tomfoolery in English and Gym (or 'P.E.', to use its proper name). There's also a GTA-style 'alert level', which lands you in the principle's office if you skip too many lessons or start playground fights. The latter half of the game will also apparently give you access to the nearby town.

MTV goes on to report that the game features no guns whatsoever, instead opting for innocent fire crackers and bags of marbles as its weapons of choice. Also, no-doubt to the delight of our female readers, lady-focussed violence has also been outlawed in Bully. According to the article, if you try to grab a girl in the game "she kicks you in the nuts." That never happened to us in school.

Bully is out at the end of October.

What seems most interesting is that the reviewers of the game seem a little disappointed that they don't get to be the terrorising bullies.

Bully casts you as schoolboy Jimmy Hopkins, a student at corrupt school, Bullworth Academy. Jimmy rather daringly plays pranks on school bullies to become the most popular lad in the class. After the huge media hoopla surrounding the game, it doesn't exactly look like the schoolyard-GTA bully sim which sent the mainstream media into a feeding frenzy. Still, we have to admit we were hoping for something a bit more Grange Hill than Saved by the Bell with tank tops.

Makes you wonder where the problems really lie.

[superwizard]

^Yeah Al I've read about that game. I think its made by a different rockstar (I mean different location rockstar-same company different people working on it). I don't know if its really such a bad game- I mean you are trying to stop bullies...

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

If child A is your child, Prim, you raise him or her however you choose. I just question the general attitude of the games power over children. I think people aren't giving kids enough credit to understand fantasy and reality.

[Primula Baggins]

You're setting up a straw man, TED.

It's not that I think they'll think the games are real. It's not that I think they'll go start shooting real people. I know that they understand the difference between a video game and reality, and I know they would never commit violence such as that.

It's just what I've said: repeatedly experiencing grotesquely violent imagery may diminish their ability to respond normally (with shock and compassion) to violence in real life. Carried to extremes you can end up with coldly cynical kids who think cruelty is funny—I know this, I saw it happen to at least one friend of my son's, now no longer a friend because my son says he's "too creepy."

[anthriel]

I really see opinions on this subject being a bit bimodal... in two dimensions, actually.

There are the people who are adults (or insolent pups ) who have played the games for years, and find themselves feeling vaguely accused of some sort of latent evil for even wanting to pursue them. These adults (or pups) KNOW that they are not unusually violent people, and so, therefore, forthwith, and in conclusion, the games must not make people violent.

Logical.

Then, there are the people who HAVE children, or are teachers of children, who start to question the usefulness of filling a child's head with visions of incredible violence, and "training" them... for it is training, of course, training is accomplished by practicing the same behavior over and over again... to see these events as "normal". "Entertaining". Even "fun".

Surely, as a parent, I am allowed to introduce into my child's life the concept that there are other sources of interest and fun? Surely, as a person who loves a certain small human and wants them to be well-rounded and empathetic and to have some love for the humanity that surrounds them, I can be forgiven, without accusations of puritism, to have a moment of distaste and censure when I walk past my boy's computer and hear something like "Head Shot! Double points!"?

That's logical, too.



I also feel like there may be just a bit of girl-normal vs. boy-normal going on, here. I saw a preview of a movie the other day with the whole premise based on a group of pre-adolescent kids having a contest about eating worms.

Now, I must confess, hopefully without any eliciting any concerns about a possible covertly puritanical Save-The-Worms stance, that I, personally, haven't the slightest interest in seeing such a movie, and am somewhat baffled why anyone would.

My 11-year old boy can't WAIT.



Boys are just DIFFERENT.


Certainly there are girls who do enjoy the violent video games, but I would suspect that most of the ardent adherents are male.

I think these violent games might just appeal to guys more. As a gal who's not all that interested in them even without the additional concerns mentioned here, I don't see why they would be so tough to just avoid, especially when there are so many other video games out there to choose from.

[halplm]

You haven't read "How To Eat Fried Worms?"

That's a classic!

There's a difference between a parent saying that they don't want their kids playing violent video games (a perfectly valid and dare I say appropriate point of view), and an opponent of video game violence stating the games shouldn't be made or they should be censored because they cause people to be violent.

The first is a parent raising their child. The second is nonsense from someone trying to pass blame for violence onto someone other than those that commit the violence. Someone who things people should not be accountable for their own behavior... as if everything we do was a result of brainwashing or conditioning...

[superwizard]

I don't see why they would be so tough to just avoid, especially when there are so many other video games out there to choose from.

You see Anthy lots of these games are viewed by kids as 'cool'. Go to any high school and ask which video game people talk about the most and I'm pretty certain its going to be either a racing game (Need for Speed, Burnout, Driver etc) or probably some sort of 'violent' video game (might be a first person shooter like Halo, a fighting game like Tekken or just a game like GTA). In fact many people believe (and I'm one of them) that the reason that the Nintendo Gamecube was last place in the console war was due to the fact that it didn't have enough of these types of games. Also boys just like that kind of stuff (at least me and all my friends do...). I've played so many violent games and watched lots of violent movies (even violent cartoons called Happy Tree Friends! if you want google them)

I don't believe for a minute that any of this has made me less considerate or less sympathetic but what I do believe is that it does make some kids (I'm not sure but I think there was a 60 minutes episode where this kid killed people just like on GTA3, sure the kid was probably ill in the first place but I'm sure that playing GTA 14 hours a day didn't help him.) My main issue is how easily kids can get their hands on games like these. The most common scenario is that they have an older brother who has bought these games and they just take it and play! Also they could just ask an older kid to buy it for them its not that hard really. I don't know what can be done to fix this but I do know that the situation right now is right.

[Primula Baggins]

It's tough because it calls for parents to (a) care and (b) keep their eyes open, and for kids and parents to trust each other.

Undoubtedly my sons have played violent video games and seen violent movies, when they're not under my supervision. I could try to forbid that, at least with the one who's not yet an adult, but I don't; they both know how I feel, but they have to learn to make their own choices when they're on their own. (Parents have to pick the rules they REALLY want to try to enforce 24/7; if there are too many, the kids stop listening or caring.)

It's enough for me that they don't play those games or watch those movies day in and day out at home, and that it doesn't seem to be important to them.

[halplm]

I think you sound like a wonderful parent to have, Prim

Anthy on the other hand... not knowing about How To Eat Fried Worms...



I'm just kidding, of course , The Fact that you guys care as much as you do... and keep tryign to improve your own parenting speaks volumes

[superwizard]

Fuzzy Wuzzy, I agree that these games can be seen as popular at school, and he will be somewhat at a disadvantage to not play them at home. He sure plays other games, though, and seems to have lots of buddies who want to play them with him. I think he's socially okay.

I mostly play other games that actually make you have to think (randomly shooting people isn't too intellectually stimulating) .
I sure think the world would be a better place if there were more Anthys

[Primula Baggins]

I mentioned this discussion to my sons (18 and almost 17). The younger one said, "Yeah, it's such a waste, all that time I spent playing Myst and Riven when I could have been pulling people's heads off. . . ."

[halplm]

[superwizard]

[Alatar]

I really see opinions on this subject being a bit bimodal... in two dimensions, actually.

There are the people who are adults (or insolent pups ) who have played the games for years, and find themselves feeling vaguely accused of some sort of latent evil for even wanting to pursue them. These adults (or pups) KNOW that they are not unusually violent people, and so, therefore, forthwith, and in conclusion, the games must not make people violent.

Logical.

Then, there are the people who HAVE children, or are teachers of children, who start to question the usefulness of filling a child's head with visions of incredible violence, and "training" them... for it is training, of course, training is accomplished by practicing the same behavior over and over again... to see these events as "normal". "Entertaining". Even "fun".

Then there are those of us who are both.

I spent large chunks of my childhood cycling my bike up to Shannon Airport with my pocket money so I could spend it on Arcade games. We had one of those paddle and ball games (Binatone System) but never got an Atari as much as I would have loved one. When my eldest brother was in University he borrowed an Atari 2600 from a friend over the Christmas and the whole family played Pacman non-stop for the 2 weeks of Christmas break.

Once I was working I bought a 386 with 4MB ram and played Tie Fighter and Descent and Warcraft: Orcs and Humans, and yes, Doom. I made the quantum leap to a Pentium 90 (costing me £1000 over 10 years ago) just for my games. I prided myself on being an "intelligent gamer". I was never into Quake and the other FPS type games, aside from Descent and Descent 2 which were really closer to dogfight sims than anything else. The along came the internet. Once I discovered the thrill of competing against other players with real intelligence, there was no turning back. I first started seriously playing Quake and the other FPS games when I was in Dell, about 8 years ago. That means I was 29 by then. In other words, I am a lifelong Gamer.

My eldest Daughter is 7, my Son is 4 and the baby is 18 months. Conor and Clíodhna play games on their PC and their XBox. All age appropriate stuff, much of it co-operative. Conor will be getting a Nintendo DS for his birthday because he will be on his own at the child minders for a couple of hours every day once he starts school. I prefer that he exercise his mind in a participatory fashion playing games, rather than sit mindlessly in front of Lizzy McGuire and her ilk.

When they hit their teens I will naturally ensure that they play age appropriate games. However, I will choose what is appropriate. Looking back at the games that have been controversial over the years, I have no problem with them playing a Mortal Kombat type game, or a Doom-like game. I draw the line at Manhunt. GTA is a trickier proposition. Its actually a very, very good game. I suppose the comparison is this. If you think your kids are mature enough to handle watching The Godfather, then they're mature enough to play GTA. Every child is different. My niece at 12 would find LotR scary, while her 10 year old brother would not. It goes completely over Clíodhna and Conor's heads.

My biggest regret is that I wish I was a strategy gamer. Its what I always wanted to play. Unfortunately I'm just a lot better at executing a railgun headshot while jump strafing across an accelerator ramp.

Lifes tough

[superwizard]

My biggest regret is that I wish I was a strategy gamer. Its what I always wanted to play. Unfortunately I'm just a lot better at executing a railgun headshot while jump strafing across an accelerator ramp.

Still you should play them. I recommend playing Battle for Middle Earth 2 which is much nicer than the first game. Of course if you haven't ever played strategy games I think the best to start off with would be command and conquer generals but I'm pretty sure you've played quite a lot of these games

PS:I'm an okay strategy player nothing fancy. I can always outsmart the machine but unforunately (due to the fact that I only got broadband this year) I haven't really had the chance to play against other people.

[anthriel]

I really see opinions on this subject being a bit bimodal... in two dimensions, actually.

There are the people who are adults (or insolent pups ) who have played the games for years, and find themselves feeling vaguely accused of some sort of latent evil for even wanting to pursue them. These adults (or pups) KNOW that they are not unusually violent people, and so, therefore, forthwith, and in conclusion, the games must not make people violent.

Logical.

Then, there are the people who HAVE children, or are teachers of children, who start to question the usefulness of filling a child's head with visions of incredible violence, and "training" them... for it is training, of course, training is accomplished by practicing the same behavior over and over again... to see these events as "normal". "Entertaining". Even "fun".

Then there are those of us who are both.

Well, I did mean of those who had commented so far. (Hi, Alatar! )

My eldest Daughter is 7, my Son is 4 and the baby is 18 months.

I can't believe she's 18 months old already...

However, I will choose what is appropriate.

Of course. And that's really exactly what I feel. Of course you will choose what is appropriate! In fact, you, with your background, have a much better shot than I do at understanding just what they are experiencing with those games.

[Impenitent]

I haven't contributed at all, but I've read every word with avid interest.

Our son, aged 9-in-two-weeks, is a little too passionate about computer games. I've corresponded with Alatar about this, and he's been great about providing some balance to my tendency to panic and has suggested some good, cooperative strategy-type games to try. Slowly, slowly...

I feel a certain amount of guilt about this; for a few months there, while we were into full house-construction mode and both working full time to boot, Jazz spent an awful lot of time on the computer. At first, on some fairly innocuous games, mazes and such...but he discovered shoot 'em up games before I realised it and really did spend hours playing. I think there was a certain naivety on our part; I saw the sites he was on, which seemed acceptable to me, and simply didn't realise how sneaky the sites are in leading players from game to game. The games, and the amount of time he played them, certainly did have a deleterious effect on his nervous system. He used to get off the computer very unwillingly, highly-strung and twitchy.

Once we realised all this, we pulled out all stops and spent much time and effort to guide him to healthier habits.

We have none of the other games platforms at home - no xbox, no playstation - and that is a deliberate choice. Computer time was radically cut down (against his strong, vociferous objections) and the kinds of games he can play dramatically narrowed: no shoot 'em ups whatsoever, and in fact, we've steered him away from the free online games, which are brain twiddle, and have bought him a copy of Age of Empires. Historically based, and he gets to play with swords and create armies so he gets his martial fix. He's also allowed to play AdventureQuest (we subscribed to that, a once-off payment), which seems to have a million levels and your hero goes off on adventures to kill dragons. I can dig that; no blood at all, and it's all swords and magic - and some strategy too, as he has to assess his strengths and spells etc again the opposing dragon's strengths and weaknesses.

We've found some interesting educational games sites too, which pose mathematical puzzles and he'll play them but not with the enthusiasm he shows for shoot 'em ups, unfortunately - and I have to supervise closely as they are only a click away from less acceptable games.

So, he's playing in a more guided fashion, and he's playing far less frequently - maybe 2-3 hours a week, mostly on the weekends, and balanced with more social play - board games, card games with us, outdoors play (especially now the weather is opening up with spring time) and learning new skills - like juggling and his devil sticks. And then there are his sporting activities too...

And we've noticed a change in his behaviour; he's less emotionally volatile, he's less obsessive about the play, he's more cooperative, he's able to come home and find something to do that does not involve the computer...It's been interesting; a dramatic demonstration of how things can get out of control if parental attention slips - because we're fairly attentive parents.

There are some hangovers though; Jazz is definitely far too interested in weaponry for my comfort. He knows the names and attributes of a bewildering array of guns, artillery and other things that explode and this has leaked into his cartoons (he draws a lot). All his little cartoon guys pack guns.

I don't know whether to worry (do I have the makings of a sociopath?) or whether it's just a boy phase and he'll come out of it with some guidance. Do I blame the shoot 'em up games? Well...sort of, yes. I mean, random sticks in the garden used to be transformed into guns via his imagination long before he started playing computer games, but I think those months of inappropriate play have been influential.

I don't really think he's got the makings of a sociopath; he's too empathic for that and he really hates seeing others hurt. But still...I can't say I like it.

ETA: Geez, I've just re-read this post and realise it doesn't add anything to the discussion! Sorry about that...