Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Feb 2009 14:34 UTC
Games Do you remember the good old days? When game manufacturers fully realised that gamers don't really need a motivation and a back story to make them want to kill everything on screen? The good old days, when Grand Theft Auto 1 was released, and Carmageddon 1 and 2 were made. Those were the days. Somewhere along the way, however, game designers started shoe-horning backstories and motivations into games where the goal is "kill everything", and as a consequence, these games became pretentious. Thank god, however, for Saints Row 2: a game that brings back the good old days of mindless violence - just for the fun of it.
Thread beginning with comment 347478
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
you are what you play (watch)
by areks on Fri 6th Feb 2009 15:05 UTC
areks
Member since:
2008-11-10
Extreme Coder Member since:
2007-07-26

Sorry, but I don't buy that. A person's willingness to help others is defined by their character and personality, not if they just had a go of GTA or Saints Row.
And what was a 12 year old playing GTA:VC? That game is rated 18+ AFAIK.

Reply Parent Score: 3

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22



Interesting link you posted. While it is stated the difference between the two groups was measured in seconds, I can not help but think that for the human brain, which has a speed unparalleled by any supercomputer, a few seconds is quite a long time.

That said, the effects of violent media proved small for the most part, coming down to a couple seconds or a few percentage points.


Should we take then that these individuals basically stopped and thought about something they simply should not be in a perfect world. I would like to see the results after a group has seen a film from the new breed of torture porn that sadly is getting popular. Most would be familiar with the Hostel or Saw series, but there are smaller budget/indie films that go even way beyond those. Films that have absolutely no redeeming value other than to play into the sick and twisted fantasies of sick and twisted people. Not in favor of censorship, but more and more these films really test that belief.

Reply Parent Score: 2

David Member since:
1997-10-01

I can not help but think that for the human brain, which has a speed unparalleled by any supercomputer, a few seconds is quite a long time.


Actually, the human brain is very slow by modern computing standards. Think about how long it takes you to figure out something you've never done before, like learning to catch a ball or fly a helicopter. The reason that our brains are so powerful is because of its massive pre-processing capabilities. We call it practice, but what we're doing when we're practicing, rehearsing, or training is setting up neural connections, so when we come across a similar scenario, we can react with immediacy. Our brains have massively parallel processing, but it's quite slow in Megahertz.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

"I can not help but think that for the human brain, which has a speed unparalleled by any supercomputer"

Good-bye 60s - welcome to the new millenium...

Only cuz they are dumb doesn't mean they are not FAAAAAST ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

I can not help but think that for the human brain, which has a speed unparalleled by any supercomputer, a few seconds is quite a long time.


What's the square root of 2977? Or for that matter what's 4 times 17? Now tell me again that the speed of the human brain is unparalleled by any supercomputer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

i'd say "you are what you play (watch)" is the wrong way around
it's more like "you play (watch) what you are"


back on topic:
the whole review reminds me of this:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/312-Sa...

Reply Parent Score: 2

vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Exactly, which you'd think the government, at least, would be happy about, since they've no problem sending 18 year olds to Iraq or Afghanistan. Although alot of parents don't seem to have a problem with it either. And when these vets come back with the thousand yard stare they still don't have a problem with it, but they're some of the same people complaining about video game violence.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Yeah that is also what I thought, Thom basically wrote down what Yahtzee said.
Imitate the best and then innovate, not the other way around. So I guess Thom did it right ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of that. While reading the article I was imagining it narrated with Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw's voice.

Reply Parent Score: 2

olefiver Member since:
2008-04-04

Let me qoute a comment from blog linked by areks

First neither group was tested before hand to set a base for their individual reaction times. The differences are in SECONDS. Obviously some people think SLOWER than others. Maybe they were considering the personal threat if becoming involved.
After a few seconds everyone seems to become involved. If people were really desensitized they would never become involved. And at no point is the group dynamic addressed.
Just more half assed horror stories seeking outside sources to blame and simplify problems.


Research with no baseline test is worthless.
One can be a good samaritan, and still watch 300 and The Ruins and play GTA.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jimbofluffy Member since:
2008-07-15


Research with no baseline test is worthless.
One can be a good samaritan, and still watch 300 and The Ruins and play GTA.


I saw that comment and immediately thought non issue. If the groups are randomly assigned, which in any of these studies they are, and you have a decent sample size you shouldn't worry all that much about the underlining differences in the two groups. More specifically the baseline, whatever that means, average response times of the two groups should not be statistically different.

The interpretation is relative not absoloute. Games labeled "violent" relative to those labeled "non-violent".

Reply Parent Score: 1

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Let me qoute a comment from blog linked by areks

"First neither group was tested before hand to set a base for their individual reaction times. The differences are in SECONDS. Obviously some people think SLOWER than others. Maybe they were considering the personal threat if becoming involved.
After a few seconds everyone seems to become involved. If people were really desensitized they would never become involved. And at no point is the group dynamic addressed.
Just more half assed horror stories seeking outside sources to blame and simplify problems.


Research with no baseline test is worthless.
One can be a good samaritan, and still watch 300 and The Ruins and play GTA.
"

You are quoting from a comment some anonymous person has posted as fact. Did either actually read the study?

In regards to the whole
The differences are in SECONDS. Obviously some people think SLOWER than others


The whole point is that the group that watched the violence had a delayed reaction. Are you implying that by some miracle all the slow people somehow managed accidentally and randomly be in just the one group?

The whole point is that if watching such violence does have an impact, even if it is a delayed reaction, this still warrants further study and discussion. Outright dismissal is the same as censorship. Fact of the matter is that every time some study comes out like this, kids always react the same. But I would rather take the opinions of educated researchers over that of a 17 year old gamer. Sorry.

Reply Parent Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

There's a term for that in media studies: the "Hypodermic-Needle Theory of Media." It refers to the notion that, during the consumption of media, the content flows into the audience's brain (as if it were injected using a hypodermic needle) and directly causes them to act in certain ways.

It's normally used as a derisive term, being seen as an incredibly-simplistic way of looking at the relationship between media and the audience.

And from a wider perspective, I'm generally skeptical of any convenient scapegoat - whether it's drugs/alcohol, violent movies, video games, D&D, "horror comics," etc etc etc.

Reply Parent Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Hmm. Right... *rolls her eyes*

Ever since I got my first computer I've loved to play violent and speedy games. Started with Wolfenstein 3D, Doom 1 & 2, Rise of the Triad, then on to Carmageddon 1 & 2 and so forth.. I still have never even once in my life hit anyone physically, I've not even planned to commit a murder or anything like that. Hell, I absolutely hate violence in real life. I only like it in games where it actually doesn't hurt any living being.

Oh, about the "test"..Well, if I heard two people fighting I wouldn't get involved. Why? Because I am afraid of violence. I'd of course call the police if it looked like any of the participants would get seriously hurt, and I'd try to help the participants after the fight was over.. As such, would I have "failed" the so-called-test here?

Honestly, the people who write such stuff and do those "tests" of theirs should think things and people's motivations a little more deeply before rushing to conclusions.

Reply Parent Score: 2