Ben-DutkaFor months, ever since the Sandy Hook tragedy, we at PSXE have wondered why journalists and gamers haven't been allowed to speak.
We've wondered why every source the mass media used had virtually no knowledge whatsoever of the industry. "Experts" utilizing archaic assumptions about video games shouldn't be given any attention and yet, they're dictating the flow of such debates.
Now, however, it seems Katie Couric wants to give gamers the chance to speak out. After a recent in-depth report entitled, "Are Video Games Ruining Your Life?," gamers everywhere understandably responded with indignant rebuttals.
And now, Couric has replied to those gamers on her Twitter page , where she asks gamers to speak:
"Passionate gamers upset [with conversation about] whether violent video games can contribute to [violent] behavior. Tweet the positive side of violent [violent] games? Thanx!"
She added later that some of the comments might be used in her show, "Katie." This sounds awfully tempting, as this industry has not yet been given a chance to defend itself. However, this is a warning to all my fellow gamers and journalists- There's something potentially sneaky about this, and be aware that in order to get ratings, they may have to focus on some of the more…unsavory replies.
Gamers are passionate, it's true, but they can also be very aggressive (and stupid) online. If that shines through in Twitter responses to Couric's piece, we're essentially proving the point that violent games can make people aggressive. It's a tie-in the show's producers may be seeking. Furthermore, note that she said to Tweet the positive side of "violent games." In truth, she could easily argue that there is no positive side to violent games, and she's conveniently cutting out the games that aren't violent.
Therefore, I would urge people not to necessarily fall into the violent game trap, but to start citing the many other fantastic productions that have little to do with violence, and a lot to do with artistic excellence, from acting to cinematography to music composition to writing. Journey is a good place to start, and the knowlegeable will know where to go from there.
I'm bothered by the 'violent video game' label because it's far too general of a label. What constitutes violence is very easily arrived and is applicable to most every video game created. I could accurately call Super Mario Bros violent. All interactions between Mario and his opposition are absolutely violent. At the same time I wouldn't classify Mario in the same category as Grand Theft Auto. One game of which IS marketed at kids whereas the other is not.
I'm also bothered by how many ignore the reasoning behind the violence. Many stories in video games are about the human conflict of preserving what is just and true. Good vs Evil. It's violence against the forces of evil. The greater threat. Does our country not support this ideal? Are we to live with padded room mentalitiy that there is truly no opposition out there that seeks to destroy that which is right? It seems nearly hypocritical for people to try and suppress that which was achieved in this country by the same means. Violence is real. Violence is necessary to preserve what is right. We need to stop pretending that it shouldn't exist. If we were perfect beings we wouldn't need violence but we aren't so stop pretending.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 5/3/2013 2:16:12 PM
Wow ignorance at its prime. I sense sarcasm in that statement " Tweet the positive side of violent video games". ENTERTAINMENT the same reason we have violent movies that young kids arent allowed to be admitted to without an adult.
Its really simple if you feel youre child shouldnt be playing a certain game due to violence dont buy it for them. I dont see anything wrong with requiring an adult to purchase an M rated game for someone under the intended age group. As I said before we do this at the theatres why cant we implement this with video games.
Definitely sounds like a trap, but maybe I'll say something anyway. I hope we hear back about this story and if they just pick the crazies.
Unsurprisingly I haven't heard anything back from MSNBC executives after contacting them on this matter.
She works for ABC.
I was talking about a previous time when this came up on an MSNBC reports and I endeavored to write some of the hosts in hopes they would lend an ear to gamers. No responses from that inquiry, I should have clarified.
It being a setup? Well unfortunately the ones that usually respond are the ones that cause the problems and just feed the nay sayers more evidence to prove their point. Foul language and smart ass insults hmmmm just don't support the gamers side of things. And if you think it does, geez.
Gamers should not be saying anything, the publishers and the devs should be. Reason being on top of what was said above is yes, some families and people do get affected more so than I am sure the majority of us, but that potentially could be what they focus on and not on the majority.
Twitter comments can be taken out of context as well.
Publishers/Devs/Studios out there!!! If you can here me, gamers would like you to get together and put some industry know hows in front of the camera with these journalist and have a rational discussion.
If thats not gonna happen… geez I don'r know. Here hoping rational prevails.
Keep Playing!
Both Rps and especially the dems are after violent video games Instead of discussing the real reasons people kill others with guns.
Are we seriously going to sit on some high horse and pretend that media don't affect our behaviours? None of us has a permanently immutable personality; it fluctuates and it vacillates (how much is up for debate, depending on what we're exposed to.
A few months ago, I linked to a number of studies that indicate that violent video games indeed make people (especially boys) more aggressive in interactions with others. The science is there to prove the case. But that's not the end of the story.
While violent video games seem in studies to show that humans become more aggressive, so we should bear that in mind, nothing I've read (at least) indicates that people are any more or less likely to go on killing sprees because of the games that they play or the movies that they watch. The aggression levels are minor and point more to mood changes than to deliberately murderous or highly violent behaviours. Thus, the arguments that (usually) the conservative media are relying on are fallacies that try to prove more than what the science tells us.
It's pretty easy if you know a lot of average people gamers to determine that their video game playing isn't inducing them to murder. It's also pretty easy if you know about sociopathy to determine that mental disorders can lead to all sorts of behaviour problems, including extreme abuse/violence. Of course, blaming gamers doesn't cost America any taxpayer money; helping those with mental and neurological disorders would. And the latter is something that many conservative pundits don't understand investing in.
Last edited by Cabalavatar1 on 5/3/2013 3:10:47 PM
simple topic. "If violent games cause violent ppl or people to do violence. I play violent games daily everyday for over 10 years now. Why arent I out killing people if thats what violent games causes people to do"?
How would someone like Kate answer that question to try to prove or defend her stance on violent games are to blame for people being violent?
When we boil down the vast majority of video games, they're almost all violent. Let's recognise that nonviolent video games are the exception–and I mean "exception" doubly because those games are very often also exceptional, artistic, and more beautiful than other mainstream games. I think we'd be cherry picking to name the very few games that diverge from the overwhelming norm.
Couric's entire strategy is smoke. It's a distraction from the main issue. We don't need to show the "positive side of violent video games." We just need to argue that there isn't any conclusive science or argument that favours the point of view that violent video game playing leads to real violence–especially the serial murderer type.
The onus is on HER to substantiate her beliefs, not on us to prove her unsubstantiated belief wrong; the lack of evidence does our work for us.
Well said. Your comments on this topic are a great example of the type of gamer commentary that needs more exposure.
Well, I'm not sure on her definition of "violent" but I'm sure there are some who will consider most if not all games to be violent.
As soon as I finished reading this I was reminded of a blog ran by Ash Burch, sister of Gearbox's Anthony Burch called "How Games Saved My Life". I am sure there are enough stories there to help others see "violent" games have merits, even if there are only about a dozen stories.
http://www.gamessavedmylife.com/
Real life kills: 0
Virtual kills: Does anyone have a TI-86?
I think I've proved my point.
Check out this video.
Video games VS. depression.
http://asia.gamespot.com/world-of-warcraft/videos/video-games-vs-depression-6407898/
Take that Katie,
Video Games helps people.
Last edited by homura on 5/3/2013 8:21:50 PM
One way to look at it would be from a punching bag stance, sports in general can make boys far more aggresive, but it also doesn't mean they are going to become violent individuals. A violent video game to me is very similar to a punching bag, I can use it to release any pent up aggresion, so that in the long run I have a far lesser chance of snapping and actually commiting one of these crimes.
I just have issues with the videogames can be harmful to kids idea, as there are thousands of other actions, hobbies, and interactions that could also do the same exact thing. Enough is enough, games are less than 50 years old and the one thing they tend to ignore is we haven't had a Hitler or Stalin type individual since videogames came out, so that also should mean something.
The media can't even mention videogames without tacking the word "violent" on as a prefix. If Katie Couric is willing to put out a piece entitled, "Are Video Games Ruining Your Life?" then she's obviously made her mind up well in advance. I don't believe that there's anything to be gained from engaging with her-especially not through Twitter. There are any number of people associated with the industry, such as Ken Levine or Adam Sessler who are more than qualified to argue the case for games and gamers. If anything, she's just looking for validation for her existing beliefs rather than seeking to understand as she claims.
i don't think it'll make a difference how postive comments are,
they'll twist and turn positive comments into sounding negative.
shits and giggles for once, why cant people just have FUN!?
to tell a story and make you feel empathy another.
heavy rain had to be quite violent and graphic at times to try make you care about the characters.
hadent it gone to the extremes it did players would not of been as connected to the characters as they were, and the connection was what made the game something truly special!
Being the youngest of 4 boys, I grew up watching violent movies, I grew up playing violent video games. My older brothers were big collectors of guns. I was learning to shoot handguns, rifles and shotguns at the age of 12. Never once did I have a thought to take a gun and just start shooting people. Why because I had parents. Parents who taught me right from wrong. We will never live in a society that has no violence. It is part of life. To say video games is contributing to violence, what about movies, tv shows, the news. Violence is everywhere.