Where does responsibilty lie?

[Garcian Smith]

As perhaps many of you have noticed, the Video Game medium has been targetted by politicians, lawyers and media outlets as being a catalyst for violence and other ant-social behaviour. The argument that is used by these people is that children and teenagers alike may act out the scenes they see in video games. Another argument is that games also create 'shut-ins' - that is, people who play games so extensively, they become unable to interact with the outside world, and have no 'true' responsibilities.

A UK Programme 'Tonight With Trevor McDonald' (http://gamepolitics.com/2006/09/30/uk-news-program-looks-at-game-addiction/) aired in September of this year, and was entitled 'Are Video Games Killing Our Kids?'. The news programme is commited to bringing an unbiased account of the subjects they investigate, however this particular feature was anything but 'unbiased'.

I will look at one of the Case Studies to explain the topic, and in turn, my personal opinions on the matter.

One of the 'Test Subjects' in ITV's news programme was an addicted World of Warcraft player. Spending upwards of 12 hours playing the MMORPG, the young teenager had no job, didn't attend school and - naturally - lived with his mother. Because of his lack of self-responsibility, she was understandably worried about her son. But where does the responsibility lie in this case? Arguably there are three possibilities:

1. Its the games fault: Due to WoW's addictive gameplay, lack of warnings and 'unlimited' lifespan, the teenager and parent have absolutely no say in the matter, he was always going to be addicted.

2. Its the teenagers fault: Every individual has the ability to quit any form of 'addiction', whether it be through their own means, or by seeking aid. He has also not taken the time out to find a job, or re-enter the education process.

3. Its the mothers fault: She paid for the computer and the internet access. It is completely within her power to take these luxuries away from her son.

Now, the report stands firm that the first possibility is the only obvious one. Games are addictive - so much so that its no problem to have Addiction Clinics, and indirectly compare them to actual additions such as Drugs and Alcohol. Much like other technophobic reports on Video Games, 'Are Video Games Killing Our Kids' attempts to strike fear into the minds of the uneducated and ignorant.

Another fault with the programme is that it portrays parents as incompetent buffoons who cannot control their children. Are we really at a point in society where outside influences such as Video Games, film and (to a lesser extent) literature have more control over an Child's actions than their parents? In the case of mature adults, I direct you to the second possibility.

Individuals make decisions about their own lives. If they choose to play games, they also choose to continue to play games - and the amount that they play them. The industry does not pump their products full of subliminal messages that - on the subconscious level - they must continue playing.

Basically, I think that it is an insult to level the blame entirely on video games - or any medium - for actions of an individual. Be that as small as crying 'Woohoo' every time you jump, or as large as murder.

My hands are tired - so I'll pass it over for discussion.

[hoboman725]

I would just like to point out that the argument that video games are making kids violent is (as reported originally by the U.S. Government) false.

the Department of Justice itself has reported youth crime rates to be dropping, and even at some of their lowest points in a long time.

I could not find the charts on the department of Justice homepage ( http://www.usdoj.gov/ ) that show this, but I found a cnn report confirming this. ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/12/14/national/main257398.shtml )

granted this is a little out of date, but I have seen more recent numbers and they appeared to be in line with this.

[DarkFlood]

If anything, videogames have reduced the amount of violent crimes. Videogame addiction isn't a good thing, but it is easily ende. All you have to do is stop playing for a day and you won't fell very much addicted anymore. Part of this is also the parent's fault. They should get a spine so they can give their child a few responsibilities. Make them take out the dog everyday, or mow the yard once a week.

As for everyone blaming videogames for violent crime, it simply isn't true. Most people know the difference between fantasy and the real life. And the ones who can't distinguish that fact shouldn't be playing videogames in the first place. Gangs are probably the leading cause of crime I believe.

The news also plays a part in this. You rarely hear *real* stories. It's all either their biased propoganda or murders. Look at Canada, their news doesn't do all of this 'fear' stuff that is done in the US, and they hardly have any crime at all.

[irockyou]

Mother/father's fault. It isn't easy to quit, because when your hooked, 99% of the time you don't want to quit. It isn't the game's fault, the distributors can make any game they want, they don't force the mother/father to buy it for their child. Besides, the mother/father can hide the game, too.

[MickyD]

I would like to point out the big issue here, it is a parents responsiblity to monitor their child and what activities they participate in. Video games are no different then movies/tv/books you could give me a violent scene out of any of these forms of media and i could act it out. If a parent chooses not to say no to a violent video game then they must take responsiblity for that choice.

You can actually look back through history and see this kind of trend, whenever some new form of entertainment comes out parents/media/government officals are quick to blame it for just about anything. go ahead and look this up for yourself if you dont believe me, comics where the subject of a very hot issue involving violence then came along tv but ever since video games came out public attention has moved away from these even though you can turn on your public news and see far more graphic things then in any video game.

point is people use things like video games as a scape goat to escape the real issues here, drugs, violence in schools, gangs ect ect. when i was in high school you never saw anyone start a fight over a video game, it was more over he said this or she said that. and since i have only been in college about a year and a half this isnt exactly long ago.

[DarkFlood]

They all play the blame game because they don't have enough of a spine to take responsibility for their parenting/child's actions.

[MickyD]

Point I'm trying to make is that there was violence long before video games or TV or any form of media existed its part of our primal instincts. Human emotions are very powerful stimuli if anything video games allow us to express potentially dangerous emotions in a safe environment. I know it’s a real load off for me if I have a hard day and am able to come home and blast some aliens to relieve stress.

[Mad Scientist]

To be truthfull, most of the people on these forums are gamers of some description, so this is hardly an unbiased discussion, however i will try and make some kind of objective analysis.

There are two schools of thought reguarding to how media of any description (games, books, tv, film), displaying a socially unacceptable tendancy, (eg violence, crime) effects a person.

One school of thought is the MIMETIC concept, which states that by seeing something a person is currently unable to do, that person will be encouraged to carry it out. The strongest case for this argument is that advertising follows essentualy the same principle.

The other idea is the CARTHATIC concept, wich states by experiencing such actions vicariously, the person effectivly "gets it out of their system" and relieves any urges they may have to do such a thing. An argument in the favour for this is the principle behind sexual fantasy.

Now, it is rarly the case that one can classify an interaction as entirly one or the other. What is more likly is that some people will be effected by media in a mimetic sense, others in a carthatic sense, and others will not really be effected by it at all. There is evidense to show that violent media does make people more violent, but only for short periods of time. The same study showed that watching or paticipating in sports also has a similar effect, so it appears competition is a factor of this agression than just violent media. All in all, there is insufficent evidense to conclude that video games in particular influence a person in one way or the other when it comes to violence. More studies are required, however, from the evidense i have seen, it appears the person themselves is a greater factor in the effects, then whatever game they are playing.

As for people who shut themselves away from normal life? In this case i follow the "harm principle" as laid out by the victorian philosopher John Suart Mill. Namely:

A person should be free to take whatever action they choose, without interfereance from others, with the single and sole exception being when that action would cause harm to others.

In other words, if a person decideds thats how they want to live their life, then i don't really think others have a right to criticise them for it. However if this chocie harms others, then it is the duty of those others to take action. In the case mentioned in the above posts, the person it could be said to be harming the most is the mother of the WoW addict (through the time and finatial support she is forced to give). It is therefore in her intrest to pull the plug, and bring her son out of his addiction. However, if the son can put himself into a position where he is not harming anyone, then leave him be.

[MickyD]

agreed, while there is evidence to support that a minority of people may actually carry out reinactments from video games that does not mean video games are the sole cause. vitually any form of stimuli could create this effect, i could simply discribe a violent situation to someone and they (for whatever reason) could in turn act it out based on what i said. same is said for tv or even real life situations, i hear many people talk about things they have seen some being fights or how "this guy beat up that guy" some people get into it and actually enjoy acting it out on a certain level.

[DarkFlood]

^^ Please don't quote people whose post is directly above yours

@Mad: You pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

[grega t]

I had an overwhelming urge to punch the presenter in the face throughout the whole of the show with her annoying annoying voice.....

and he freaks out when you just come and turn it off whilst he's in the middle of a level, and they are surprised...no ****? how about i just come and turn off your dvd player and take away the remote so you cant fast forward it?

[Solokiller]

I read that videogames reduce violence by letting people express their anger, so if everybody would play games they would safely do what they want in a virtual world. I myself play games not only for fun, i want to create games as well.
I've already looked into HL2's source code and i'm pretty good at mapping. Mapping requires you to do a lot of math as well, so they should praise games for their requirement to think about something (the people that complain about videogames sit infront of their TV a lot doing nothing).

[rtanger]

JUst a semantic note, but I believe the correct term is Cathartic/Catharsis, not Carthatic.

Im my opinion, you can't select just one person to be responsible. Videogame companies carry a modicum of responsibility for making the game, and should be responsible for making sure important information about the game is available to parents to know, if they choose. It comes down to ethics, here, and I think we can safely say that game companies do their best to make sure that the game isn't represented in an incorrect light, and (in)voluntarily subject their creations to a ratings board to achieve this.

It should be the reseller's responsibility to make sure the games only get into the hands of those that are old enough, or to warn/inform the parents about the game's content before purchase. Again, this becomes an issue of ethics, as it becomes a necessity for the seller to affect his bottom-line by potentially killing a sale. Do they want to do that?

It's the parent's responsibility to make sure that the game is appropriate for their kid, or to AT LEAST be aware of what they are doing, and to take steps to make sure the kid knows the difference between reality and virtuality. It is also the parent's responsibility to intervene if a game seems to be affecting their kid in a negative way, and this becomes an issue of discipline, something which seems to be lacking to a large extent in today's parenting practice.

As for a gamer, it's our responsibility to know our limits to an extent and when to say "Enough is enough." This doesn't necessarily apply to kids, as it is the parent's job to impart this knowlege onto the kid, and to help him find acceptable limits. Back to older gamers-- we need to know for ourselves when and if a game is affecting us negatively. This boils down to self-control and an understanding of what the potential risks are, just as with any potentially addicting situation, be it games, gambling, or drugs.

As for me, I've gone out of my way to avoid WoW in the same way I go out of my way to avoid certain addictive substances, as I KNOW FOR A FACT I would never recover from their grasp. Personal responsibility is most important here, and it's important for us to be informed of the risks we take.

I don't think I want to see a disclaimer plugged on the side of a box that screams "The object contained within is potentially addicting. Open at your own risk," but it should the game developer's job to inform consumers of potential risks with their product, to the same extent at least as the Epilepsy warning that is inserted into the first page of every game since Nintendo's heyday.

It's a complicated chain of responsibility, and blame/responsibility can't be pinned to one particular source.

[Darth Ajax]

I'll say my piece and be done.

Videogames are a method of stress relief. When I get mad at someone or something, I turn on a violent game and relieve my frustration. I was a lot angrier and getting into more trouble before I found games.

Responsibility for any crime does not lie with the game developers, and several people try to put it. Their responsibility ends when the game hits store selves.

Nor is it the games fault. They are inanimate objects. They cannot "make" a person do or say anything. They are entertainment, and they actually help prevent crime by releiving frustrations.

It is partially the parents fault, as they bought the game and allowed their children to play the game. If they were smart, they would have actually read the game box to make sure they want their child to have it, and if they did not, then they should not have bought it.

It is also partially the gamer's fault, as it was their choice to play the game. They could have not played the game, and still have been alive. It was their choice.

As for games being to root of all evil, that would be like Prohibition, it would never work. First off, saying games caused crime would be false, as I said above, games can't make people do anything. If the player commited a crime they saw on a game, then they should not have been given the game in the first place, as they would have been obviously mentally unbalenced.

I pretty much agree with everyone above, but I would also add that if people ban videogames, what would be next? Banning violent movies? Violent comics? Violent TV shows? Violent books? Might as well try banning real life while you're at it. Life is not perfect, some people are just rotten. Banning violent entertainment will increase the nimber of crimes by reducing the number of outlets.

Ban games, increase crime. That's my view.

[TheTaxidermist]

I think what the people against violent games are trying to get at is that they desensitize you to violence. I tend to agree that it does desensitize you. If you see someone's head getting blown up for the first time, it can be a gruesome terrible thing. Once you see it several times, it doesn't have as much of an effect on you. But, just because you are desensitized to violence, doesn't mean it's going to turn you into a murderer.

[rtanger]

Videogame violence has no connection to real-world violence.
If someone becomes desensitized to real violence through virtual means, then their problem goes deeper than the game.

With the amount of violent games I play, I should be able to knife your arm without a second thought if the desensitization argument was valid.

Thankfully, for you and me both, I'm well aware of the disconnect between the virtual realm and the real world.

It becomes gamers' and parents' responsibilities to make sure they maintain this disconnect for themselves.

[TheTaxidermist]

I'm referring to violent games, movies and television.

[DKR1138]

responsibity lies with yourself and your parents, the end... Developers should be able to develop what they want, and if consumers are annoyed/scared and/or sickend by its content, then don't buy it... if there scared for there child playing it then monitor there games and assure they don't play it...

The Fact is NO MATTER what the rating is on a game, or whether or not your government bans it... ANY factor of blockage, if you want to play it you will, through legal or illegal means.

Its like Germany banning violent games, there Government have effectively cut off a source of profit, now that market of buyers will just go international for there purchases (and they will).

In the end there are some truths people (and soccor mums) need to accept... there are some bad nuts out there, some with mental problems, problems are bound to happen and its unavoidable.