My point-of-view is: if people are worried about kids growing up with violent games that allow you to shoot people "in the face" or wherever you should be more concerned your kid is growing up in a politically and economically unstable world instead where a Government is cheered for killing a wanted terrorist (Osama Bin Laden or cheers for the death of the Boston Bombing suspects). What kind of world are we living in where it's considered okay to cheer because a criminal died, but it's a moral dilemma making first person shooters because they might make some people think it's okay to shoot people in real life? Regardless of what someone did or who they hurt, cheering any death is sick in my opinion.
Sure computer games send mixed messages to some, but having grown up in the 90's when first person shooters were in full swing (Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem) I never once had the urge to go and do it in real life, neither did my friends and trust me I remember spending a large chunk of my youth playing Golden Eye 64 when it came out with friends on the Nintendo 64. I wonder if studies have been performed on people likely to commit violent crimes and whether or not games actually help take the urge away to do it in real life?
If people don't get their violent entertainment from games, they'll just get it from; movies, highly publicised sporting events (MMA, Boxing, BJJ), the news or in real life. The art of violent entertainment was well in full-swing before the home gaming revolution took place. Since anyone can remember, people have been using weapons as a means to cause harm to one another. We can blame games and we can blame easy targets like Eminem or Marilyn Manson, we should be blaming ourselves. We are responsible for our own actions and when we're not, it's because we convince ourselves it's because of someone or something else.
It sounds to me like this guy is in the wrong industry. If he doesn't want to make violent games and violent games sell as Battlefield and Grand Theft Auto have proven, then what does he want to do? Sounds like he should be working for a smaller struggling developer who specialise in family friendly games instead or even considering a career move entirely. This is not an insult, it's an observation. If you have a problem with the kind of work you're doing, find a new job and someone who can and wants to do your job, will.
Developers don't make FPS games because they love to praise and glorify violence, it's because FPS' sell. As a keen player of Battlefield 3, I can see why they sell. They're a good escape from the busy day or week you had. Mindless entertainment you can mash the buttons on your controller and relieve some stress, not to mention have fun.
I think anyone who can go out and commit an act of violence and blame it on a game is a mental health issue, not an issue attributed to playing games. Violent games activate and induce violent behaviour in real life no more than drugs or alcohol have been doing for centuries. I know there have been stories over the years, but the number of crimes committed supposedly because of games is rather small compared to deaths via firearms, dangerous driving, drugs or alcohol.
Thought for the day: A drug addict kills someone with a gun for money to get their next hit, what aspect of the story does the media focus on? The fact he was a drug addict who needed help, the fact he had nobody to turn to for help, the fact he obtained access to an illegal firearm or the fact that he played a lot of Grand Theft Auto?
> "but it's a moral dilemma making first person shooters because they might make some people think it's okay to shoot people in real life?"
I don't think any non-crackpot really believes that video games cause people to pick up guns and shoot people. No one has ever played a video game and gone "hey you know what'd be cool, if I went and shot up a mall".
The moral dilemma is not about directly causing someone to become violent, but rather about creating a culture where violence is celebrated rather than abhorred, and the consequences of all of this violence in aggregate. No single video game would drive someone to violence, but the aggregation of thousands of video games, tens of thousands of movies, and a government that glorifies war, certainly doesn't help anything.
I think the moral dilemma isn't about any real, measurable harm, but rather about whether you're creating a pop culture that reflects the world you want to live in, or you're contributing to a pop culture that is the antithesis of your own principles.
> "Thought for the day: A drug addict kills someone with a gun for money to get their next hit, what aspect of the story does the media focus on?"
The fact that they're an addict. Seriously, I have not seen any major case pinned of video games for years. Jack Thompson and Columbine was a long time ago, before the mass-marketization of shooters. With games like COD and Halo being so mainstream your grandma has played it, the "video game causes deadly shootout!" angle is no longer tenable.
And we as gamers need to stop pretending the world is still like the bad old days of the 90s when every evil was pinned on us. Only the most extreme, the least credible news sources are still hanging onto this angle, and it's disingenuous to pretend that this is still a mainstay of modern news reporting today.
I fail to see how FPS games contribute to "creating a culture where violence is celebrated rather than abhorred". Do you have any references to research that supports that claim?
I can see that good action movies can contribute to the culture where good action movies are celebrated. But that doesn't have anything to do with celebrating violence.
Do moviegoers feel bad when people die in movies? I do, and it makes me not like the movie, unless it is a drama and the death gets appropriate attention and consideration.
Living in the UK with our (IMHO) wonderful, sane gun control laws, the idea of a shooting seems surreal... and the jump from playing an FPS to the visceral horror of actually stabbing someone seems unlikely to be manageable without substantial help. Whilst a bat or other blunt object of some description is an alternative weapon, the environment around us seems to provide the feeling that the law does a good job of discouraging wanton violence and bringing things as close as possible to homicides committed out of the interaction simple frustration[1] and a little psychopathy (which it may be impossible to stop?)
(for reference's sake, 0.07 per 100,000 intentional gun homicides 2011)
Similarly, when I see the people out and about that actually seem like they could be dangerous... they don't appear to be particularly interested in video games. It makes me wonder where the connection arose from and whether it's the case that the furore is just that or if it is motivated by any particular group's personal distaste for FPSs.
(Caveat: I'm quite aware that I haven't quite covered the implication both ways around, but... tired. stalks away)
[1]: I really, really want to avoid writing 'crimes of passion'... but shrug
A more interesting moral dilemma is whether you support giving the weapon manufacturers money through videogame developers who pay them for a license to use their weapons in-game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeIHH0XEs6E.
My point-of-view is: if people are worried about kids growing up with violent games that allow you to shoot people "in the face" or wherever you should be more concerned your kid is growing up in a politically and economically unstable world instead where a Government is cheered for killing a wanted terrorist (Osama Bin Laden or cheers for the death of the Boston Bombing suspects). What kind of world are we living in where it's considered okay to cheer because a criminal died, but it's a moral dilemma making first person shooters because they might make some people think it's okay to shoot people in real life? Regardless of what someone did or who they hurt, cheering any death is sick in my opinion.
Sure computer games send mixed messages to some, but having grown up in the 90's when first person shooters were in full swing (Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem) I never once had the urge to go and do it in real life, neither did my friends and trust me I remember spending a large chunk of my youth playing Golden Eye 64 when it came out with friends on the Nintendo 64. I wonder if studies have been performed on people likely to commit violent crimes and whether or not games actually help take the urge away to do it in real life?
If people don't get their violent entertainment from games, they'll just get it from; movies, highly publicised sporting events (MMA, Boxing, BJJ), the news or in real life. The art of violent entertainment was well in full-swing before the home gaming revolution took place. Since anyone can remember, people have been using weapons as a means to cause harm to one another. We can blame games and we can blame easy targets like Eminem or Marilyn Manson, we should be blaming ourselves. We are responsible for our own actions and when we're not, it's because we convince ourselves it's because of someone or something else.
It sounds to me like this guy is in the wrong industry. If he doesn't want to make violent games and violent games sell as Battlefield and Grand Theft Auto have proven, then what does he want to do? Sounds like he should be working for a smaller struggling developer who specialise in family friendly games instead or even considering a career move entirely. This is not an insult, it's an observation. If you have a problem with the kind of work you're doing, find a new job and someone who can and wants to do your job, will.
Developers don't make FPS games because they love to praise and glorify violence, it's because FPS' sell. As a keen player of Battlefield 3, I can see why they sell. They're a good escape from the busy day or week you had. Mindless entertainment you can mash the buttons on your controller and relieve some stress, not to mention have fun.
I think anyone who can go out and commit an act of violence and blame it on a game is a mental health issue, not an issue attributed to playing games. Violent games activate and induce violent behaviour in real life no more than drugs or alcohol have been doing for centuries. I know there have been stories over the years, but the number of crimes committed supposedly because of games is rather small compared to deaths via firearms, dangerous driving, drugs or alcohol.
Thought for the day: A drug addict kills someone with a gun for money to get their next hit, what aspect of the story does the media focus on? The fact he was a drug addict who needed help, the fact he had nobody to turn to for help, the fact he obtained access to an illegal firearm or the fact that he played a lot of Grand Theft Auto?