Games That Teach Terrorism!!

[caddy_caddy]

A big cube surrounded by minarets and palm trees in a desert is invaded by the army of our hero .


Our hero is following the murderer who enters a church when people are praying . The former fired randomely and killed everyone.


On the beach , some people are swimming , others sunbathing ; our hero throws some bombs on the beach and explodes himself .

These are only three different scenes I saw in three different Playstation games when my son was playing . I can find thousands of these examples if I keep watching !

Actually I found it really ironical to call it games but my son insists that it is " just a game " ,and that there is no problem in doing these things " virtually " .
In these games the hero is allowed to do anything to move from one phase to another . The question of ethics , holly places is completely ignored since it is JUSTa GAME .
When I discussed with my son the idea behind the above scenes , he listened but he didn't agree with me ; he thought I'm exaggerating . Am I really ???

In my country the DVDs are very cheap : Copies; kids can buy them from their pocket money ; they are available everywhere and in huge quantity .
I find these rubbish very dangerous and poisinning kid's brain . For sure it's firstly the responsibility of the parents to control what their kids watch and play , but the censorship and the laws could also give a great help .
The question is :
Do u think we can ignore the question of ethics and holly places in games ?
Do you have in your countries some laws that deal with such issues ??
Is there any kind of censorchip on companies or they are completely free ?

[The Atheist]

Do u think we can ignore the question of ethics and holly places in games ?

Sure. They're games.

I used to play cowboys and Indians when I was kid, and we always killed off the Indians.

Despite that genocidal upbringing, I am not racist against American Natives and haven't shot a single one of them.


Do you have in your countries some laws that deal with such issues ??

No. Unless a game contavenes human rights & race laws by inserting actual race-hate messages of some kind, not at all for that kind of content.

[QUOTE=caddy_caddy;873679]Is there any kind of censorchip on companies or they are completely free ?

Games are censored for levels and graphicness of violent acts in the game, but that would usually only mean an "over 18 years only" rating. I can't think of any games which have been banned.

[Hurricane]

A game is just a game. Growing up, one of my favorite pastimes was playing knights with my sister, which basically consisted of whacking each other with heavy wooden sticks and pretending to kill one another. I've also been playing violent video games since around the age of 12. This has not made me a particularly violent person.
There's not really any substantial evidence that video games cause violence, and people keep on getting into hysterics about it for really no good reason. In video games, I have stolen cars, stabbed innocent people, shot cops, shot prisoners of war, solicited prostitutes, killed aforementioned prostitutes and stolen their money, and burned people alive. Miraculously, I have done none of these things in real life and would consider myself a fairly normal young adult.
You also mentioned yourself that it's up to the parent to determine what the child sees. That's exactly true, and that's where it should end. I'm very strongly against censorship, and I see no reason why the government should get involved in something that's the job of the parent.


Games are censored for levels and graphicness of violent acts in the game, but that would usually only mean an "over 18 years only" rating. I can't think of any games which have been banned.

Some games have been banned due to content, but none in the United States or Canada and all bans attempted in the UK have been later overturned. For some reason Australia seems have banned or censored a large number of games.

[Gladys]

I'm very strongly against censorship, and I see no reason why the government should get involved in something that's the job of the parent.


But many parents decline to do the job of parenting.

Here's a case for some censorship. Violent video games enable vulnerable teenagers to aim and kill dozens of people in a public shooting spree. Without the games, they would do what most infantry soldiers did in close combat in WW1: fire to miss, not fire at all, or fire haphazardly with pulse racing at 250 beats-per-minute (which doesn't work for a bi-athlete either).

We know computer games desensitise killing because armies world-wide have adopted similar games and proved it.

[kiki1982]

I agree with that above, but I would say that there is a difference between "killing" and killing.

If you eliminate your enemy in a game, you elliminate him just however you have to. Whether that's by throwing a barrel against them in true Asterix-style or by insinerating them. That doesn't mean you're going to do that for real because for real, there is the barrier of the person being a real person.

Even soldiers have problems with that, and they are supposed to be trained for killing people and that is why (at least the British troops I know of) have psychologists with them to deal with the sight of someone falling over because one has shot him.

What can happen, is that - as that Korean couple that didn't feed its baby because they were ironically adicted to feeding a virtual one (they didn't differentiate between the real one and the virtual one) which caused the baby to starve to death - reality and virtual reality fade into each other and then "killing" can become killing. However, that only happens with people who are really adicted to those games. Then violence induced by violent computer games can become a reality, but not if the child/teenager is not adicted to it. Then they can still make a clear difference between the real and the virtual.

So, I would say,as long as you don't let your child play with those computer games for like 8+ hours a day, then there shouldn't be a problem. He will not consider the church as a real place where he is going to the next level if he kills everyone in there.

[jadrianne]

that the parents ,the family should know what their child is playing.

But it's very hard because the child for example goes to school and finds out from his friends about new and violent games.He or she goes to visit them and they can play quietly without anyone knowing what they are doing.

[Hurricane]

But many parents decline to do the job of parenting.

Here's a case for some censorship. Violent video games enable vulnerable teenagers to aim and kill dozens of people in a public shooting spree. Without the games, they would do what most infantry soldiers did in close combat in WW1: fire to miss, not fire at all, or fire haphazardly with pulse racing at 250 beats-per-minute (which doesn't work for a bi-athlete either).

We know computer games desensitise killing because armies world-wide have adopted similar games and proved it.

Clicking a mouse is not the same as firing a high-powered rifle. Being good at one is not a predictor of how you are at the other: I'm a mediocre at best shot, for example.
Most people (i.e., Dave Grossman) use S.L.A. Marshall's numbers for the number of troops who didn't fire in combat (Marshall says only around 15-25% of troops fire in combat). But Marshall went about getting his numbers in pretty much the most unscientific way possible.
Also, using contrasting WWI with teenagers committing mass murder is fairly ridiculous. People like the Columbine shooters were aiming at unarmed students who posed no threat to them, of course they're going to be more accurate than guys who are getting shot at. The Columbine shooters, the VT killer, etc, were all people who had serious issues and would have done something horrible with or without video games.
Censoring video games is lazy parenting. There are already video game ratings (at least in the US) that tell you, on the label, who the game is appropriate for and why it got that rating. Stores are not suposed to sell hyperviolent games like Grand Theft Auto to children, but a lot of them just look the other way. How about enforcing rules that already exist instead of running around and creating meaningless new legislation and headaches for responsible users just to make people feel better?
If you don't like it, then don't let your kids buy it or play it. I know my parents had a very strict no video games policy for most of my childhood because they thought it could have been distracting from having actual friends.
Here's a thought: if we were talking about books, I strongly doubt that most people here would have any real passion for censoring them, but would say that it's a case of just making sure they're read at the appropriate age. Just like you'd never let your fourth grader read A Clockwork Orange, don't let him/her play Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, either.

[The Atheist]

But many parents decline to do the job of parenting.

Without heading to Brave New World and ensuring that parents don't have access to their children, we cannot avoid bad parenting by censorship or nannying the entire population.


Here's a case for some censorship. Violent video games enable vulnerable teenagers to aim and kill dozens of people in a public shooting spree.

That is not factual.

There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests games encourage or enable violent crime. I see no refutation of the idea that budding violent criminals are attracted to violent video games in the same way that a child psychopath will be attracted to maiming animals.

In what way does playing video games differ from the ultra-violence we used to use as kids when we shot Indians, beat the crap out of each other and indulged in extremely dangerous rock fights?


Without the games, they would do what most infantry soldiers did in close combat in WW1: fire to miss, not fire at all, or fire haphazardly with pulse racing at 250 beats-per-minute (which doesn't work for a bi-athlete either).

What evidence do you have that soldiers in WWI fired to miss, or declined to fire than in any other miltary action?

What percentage of biathletes become mass-murderers? Why don't they - they are the perfectly-trained killing machine on skis!

How did WWI differ from WWII?

Do you not think the ever-increasing success rate in shooting enemy has a lot more to do with accuracy and reliability of weapons than the attitude of the soldiers?


We know computer games desensitise killing because armies world-wide have adopted similar games and proved it.

Well then, since I agree that various miltary organisations use the games, you should have no trouble proving the desensitising effect of them, because I'd love to see that proof.

Thanks.

[OrphanPip]

What evidence do you have that soldiers in WWI fired to miss, or declined to fire than in any other miltary action?

What percentage of biathletes become mass-murderers? Why don't they - they are the perfectly-trained killing machine on skis!

How did WWI differ from WWII?

Do you not think the ever-increasing success rate in shooting enemy has a lot more to do with accuracy and reliability of weapons than the attitude of the soldiers?



Gun quality has changed a lot, but so has the conditioning and training. It is an actual fact that unconditioned soldiers make for poorer killing machines than soldiers who have been conditioned to fire at any sign of danger. Military psychologist have worked extensively at producing training methods that make for more effective and more obedient soldiers. Although, of course this has nothing to do with video games. The conditioning of soldiers in the previous wars simply wasn't as "good" as it is today.

[The Atheist]

Gun quality has changed a lot, but so has the conditioning and training.

I'm not disputing that training is pretty helpful.

I'd bet that live firing exercises work pretty well, too.

It's the video game desensitising I'm interested in.

[Paulclem]

Hi Caddy Caddy,

Don't worry about your son - he's perfectly normal in his intersts in violent video games. As Atheist said, there's absoutely no evidence to link actual violence with videogames. The fact that violent people play video games as well is not an argument for a link between this violence.

As The atheist has indicated, with his violent rock throwing games:D , boys are more aggressive and violent than girls. I think this is little understood by females, but it is well understood by most men.

This though has little to do with video games. If there were really a link, then you can be sure that millions of young men would be engaged in violent acts all around the world because the games industry is a multi billion dollar industry.

There have been the odd outraged pronouncements by politicians wanting recognition/ soapboxes/ an issue to get their teeth into. In fact it may be that computers and video games are keeping young lads off the streets where they would be more likely to be getting into bother.

And now fo a spot of Quake Live online!

[The Atheist]

In fact it may be that computers and video games are keeping young lads off the streets where they would be more likely to be getting into bother.

This is a very good, and I believe unexplored, point.

We can now say with fairly good reliability that freely available pornography (thanks to the internet) has led to a decline in sexual crimes.

Why wouldn't it work the same for violence? Can young blokes subsume their violent tendencies into fantasy with the help of video games?

[Paulclem]

This is a very good, and I believe unexplored, point.

We can now say with fairly good reliability that freely available pornography (thanks to the internet) has led to a decline in sexual crimes.

Why wouldn't it work the same for violence? Can young blokes subsume their violent tendencies into fantasy with the help of video games?

I didn't know that about pornography. It's an interesting outcome.

[Gladys]

What evidence do you have that soldiers in WWI fired to miss, or declined to fire than in any other miltary action? ... Well then, since I agree that various military organisations use the games, you should have no trouble proving the desensitising effect of them, because I'd love to see that proof.

The desensitising effect relies in part on killing (like the gamer and the psychopath) with a low-to-moderate pulse rate. The following links argue the desensitising effect of some violent games:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Grossman_%28author%29

http://www.killology.com/article_agress&viol.htm


How did WWI differ from WWII?

WWII placed more emphasis on soldier desensitisation training, in view of soldier aversion to killing in close-quarters combat in WWI.


What percentage of biathletes become mass-murderers? Why don't they - they are the perfectly-trained killing machine on skis!

All biathletes completely miss their targets if they fire with heartbeat rates approaching 300 bpm. Biathletes, unlike 'mass-murderer' gamers, are trained to puncture paper bullseye targets, and their pulse rises through exercise rather than through aiming to kill their fellow man. Dave Grossman's argues that the pulse of a man off the street (unless a psychopath) will race beyond self-control when ordered to kill another, face-to-face, at point blank range.

I can't, of course, comment on the veracity of US Col. Dave Grossman's research.

[The Atheist]

The desensitising effect relies in part on killing (like the gamer and the psychopath) with a low-to-moderate pulse rate. The following links argue the desensitising effect of some violent games:

I thought this was where you were heading, and I've had the argument previously.

Placing people in genuine combat simulations, firing actual weapons is obviously going to increase your killing efficiency, but I still don't buy the "desensitising" argument. It could equally be simply learning to overcome the adrenaline rush of being in an engagement, but the authors of the studies only seem to view the results with one eye.

Pre-firearm combats relied on people killing or being killed, which tended to work fairly well, and the alleged resistance to killing other humans doesn't appear to have been much of a factor.

The whole thing is completely speculative and seems unlikely as it would require a genetic propensity to not killing, which wouldn't help your chances of surviving.


I didn't know that about pornography. It's an interesting outcome.

Here's The Scientist's (http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57169/;jsessionid=11052B2017D324DEE388B0845B2FFEDB)artic le on it.

I figure that if the desensitising argument had any weight at all, viewing the kind of porn which is freely available would desensitise men to both women and sex crime, but the opposite appears to be true.

[JuniperWoolf]

There've been a HELL of a lot of studies done on whether or not violent video games actually make children more violent. And the results aaaare... inconclusive.

Some have found a correlation, some haven't. Even if there IS a correlation, there's no way to find out whether or not the games make the children violent or if violent children just so happen to be attracted to violent games... OR if there's some completely different third factor influencing both variables (say lack of energy-consuming play or some kind of inherent evolutionary need for violence within all humans).

At the end of the day, most people (including children) aren't insane or deliriously stupid and can tell the difference between a video game and reality.

[Paulclem]

Here's The Scientist's (http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57169/;jsessionid=11052B2017D324DEE388B0845B2FFEDB)artic le on it.

I figure that if the desensitising argument had any weight at all, viewing the kind of porn which is freely available would desensitise men to both women and sex crime, but the opposite appears to be true.

Interesting. It seems to make sense.


There've been a HELL of a lot of studies done on whether or not violent video games actually make children more violent. And the results aaaare... inconclusive.

Some have found a correlation, some haven't. Even if there IS a correlation, there's no way to find out whether or not the games make the children violent or if violent children just so happen to be attracted to violent games... OR if there's some completely different third factor influencing both variables (say lack of energy-consuming play or some kind of inherent evolutionary need for violence within all humans).

At the end of the day, most people (including children) aren't insane or deliriously stupid and can tell the difference between a video game and reality.

I think you're right. Psychos would be psychos with or without games.

[Katy North]

I'm not sure if any of you are fans of Penn and Teller's "BS" series, but I am, and they did an excellent episode on video games.

It pointed out the following:

1) Most teens interviewed say that they believe that playing video games teaches them the consequences of their actions.

2) Playing video games in groups is an excellent way for teenagers to both de-stress and socialize.

3) Finally, Penn and Teller asked an 8 year old boy who was raised with access to violent video games to shoot an actual gun with the help of an experienced marine. With the marine there, shooting at nothing but a picture of a robber holding a gun to the head of a child, and with his mom in the background, the way the boy behaved was very telling... after he fired the gun a couple times, he broke down and cried.

Of course, other kids might be different, but there is a huge difference between "killing" on a video game, and wielding a weapon capable of killing in real life. What Penn and Teller were pointing out is this... it doesn't matter what your heart rate is. Killing a real person, and killing an animated person are completely different experiences. While you do want your children to understand the enormity of what they're pretending to do when they play video games, I agree that it's isn't any more worrisome than wielding a stick instead of a sword and playing "knights" or using your fingers to make guns and playing cowboys and Indians.

[The Atheist]

I think you're right. Psychos would be psychos with or without games.[/QOTE]

I'm sure that's right.

[QUOTE=Katy North;874313]3) Finally, Penn and Teller asked an 8 year old boy who was raised with access to violent video games to shoot an actual gun with the help of an experienced marine. With the marine there, shooting at nothing but a picture of a robber holding a gun to the head of a child, and with his mom in the background, the way the boy behaved was very telling... after he fired the gun a couple times, he broke down and cried.

That seems to go along with the violent being attracted to games rather than games creating the violent attitude.

[caddy_caddy]

Thanks for all your replies; they are very illuminating .
Almost all of you focused on the violence although it was not my main concern . I do believe that if we( parents ) are violent with our kids they would be violent . Our behaviour with them in everyday reality is the major factor . In what concerns voilence I think kids tend to imitate the real environemnt they are living in .

My son is not violent at all in his behaviour and reactions .Playing violent games for hours daily cannot change his behaviour .On the contrary if he watches just one wrestling match , he becomes highly motivated to do like them . He imitates and does dangerous things with his relatives immediately after watching . For that reason I've never allowed him to watch wrestling again and I deleted the channel .
As you said kids diffferentiate between reality and games . Tha'ts very true .

I don't know if this could be applied on ethics too .

[Niamh]

I think you're right. Psychos would be psychos with or without games.

Thats what my stance would be. Personally i think a lot of people point the blame at computer games bacause they might be ashamed of the real reason behind the violance, like mental issues and violant tendancies.

[applepie]

I wouldn't worry too much over violent video games myself. I'm not too much for censorship, but I do appreciate the rating system. It gives me a quick snapshot of whether it is something I would really allow.

All things considered, I'm more strict now than I will be in 10 years. My children are both very young (3 and 6) so I am more careful about what it is they have available when it comes to media. By the time they're teens, I'll not worry so much. By that point they should have good morals, values, and know the difference between right and wrong. I can say that I was never damaged or pushed to violence by a game. I remember one where you were trying to save this group of oppressed aliens. Anyway, you could put them under saws or into grinders and such to kill them. It hurt your score, but I remember playing sometimes just to kill everything for my own amusement. The real key is that your son knows that they're just a game. The ability to distinguish reality would be far more of a concern. In most cases, I think that people try to blame video games for their behavior as merely an excuse. It is like saying "Oh I ran someone over?? I didn't know it would hurt them. I do it all the time in Grand Theft Auto." The disturbing part to me is that people buy that excuse...

In regards to ethics, I think that making sure there is a sound foundation at home helps to keep any form of media from undermining them. My kids both act out the UFC fighting that they see from time to time, and they play Transformers, but they both know right from wrong (well my 3 year old not so much, but she's still learning). They know when they've hurt someone or when they do something that isn't right. I really think these things are more learned from home, and as long as your son understands that games are just that, then he isn't likely to have your own teachings wiped out.

[Niamh]

A game is just a game. Growing up, one of my favorite pastimes was playing knights with my sister, which basically consisted of whacking each other with heavy wooden sticks and pretending to kill one another.

Sounds like my childhood. :p except it was wrestling! :D