Well, for those of us who insist that there's no link whatsoever between what people watch, read or play and the way they act, or at least no causational relation, here's a little excerpt:

Those who played the violent video game showed more activation in the amygdala, which is involved in emotional arousal, and less activation in the prefrontal portions of the brain associated with control, focus and concentration than the teens who played the nonviolent game.

"Our study suggests that playing a certain type of violent video game may have different short-term effects on brain function than playing a nonviolent, but exciting, game," said Dr. Vincent Mathews, a professor of radiology at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis and the study's author.

Read the rest (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyid=2006-11-28T182315Z_01_N28224642_RTRUKOC_0_US-VIDEOGAMES-BRAIN.xml) at Reuters.

That's interesting, but I don't think that it's the best evidence for the point that you're trying to make. They're talking about it activating the 'fight or flight' reaction - which is a short term effect and doesn't, as far as I know, have any long term implications, and isn't something that is going to make previously non-violent people violent.

(oh - and I'm not insisting that there is no link whatsoever. It's quite possible that there is such a link, but having one shown to me wouldn't change my stance of video game censorship one bit)

I do believe that violent games especially at young age will have an effect and probably cause the child to act a bit more aggressively. However I do not think that games alone are enough to make anyone a violent person or send someone on a killing spree, I find that sort of thought completely ridiculous. I do however think that the age restrictions should be taken serious by parents and retailers. I think a big problem is that parents simply do not know what kinds of games are ok and what kinds are not and nor do the scientist for that matter.

I find it surprising how they link games to violent crime when most violent crime that takes place does so without any violent video game influence at all.

Anyone who is foolish enough to let a video game influence their decisions would just be as gulliable to allow some other source of violent influence to dictate their nature.

Obviously a violent game will influence the part of the brain that deals with a violent situation. Thinking the result could possibly be any different is just like biting into an apple and expecting it to taste like an orange.

It has been pointed that it's possible that those who are more aggressive could possibly play more violent games to blow off some steam. Of course, it might not be so.

Anyways, I think that if you will be affected by a game so that you will start a killing spree, you already had something very wrong in your head. At least I haven't thought about taking a gun and shooting anyone even though I have played violent games (and nonviolent, on an unrelated note) for a long time.

"What we showed is there is an increase in emotional arousal. The fight or flight response is activated after playing a violent video game," Mathews said.And when doing extreme sports, or when watching a (good) horror movie at night time with the lights off, or when driving at 120km/h in the motorway with a truck up your arse flashing the lights. Your body reacts to stimuli that, even if not "really dangerous" (I reserve my opinion on extreme sports and crazed drivers), are hardcoded as such.

The real findings would have been to discover that one of the subjects showed no emotion whatsoever when doing all the virtual killing. Police, meet a psycho; psycho, meet the police.

Ah, well; let's just "give up" and do as the anti-violence preachers say. Let's ban all M -rated entertainment. No, let's ban TVs, PCs, and such just to be safe. They can cause rushes of adrenaline, after all. And since adrenaline is dangerous, let's also neuter all males. Eunuchs shouldn't cause any kind of problems. Of any kind. They should just go outside and play some good, old-fashioned camping games and have some *real* fun in the Sunday mass at the local church.

Since the eunuchs should have a lot of free time, thanks to banned media, they should be able to attend every day and not just Sundays. Teaches right values and respect of life. Okay, a few crusades and wars were a little mishap, but at least they weren't as dangerous as Duke Nukem 3D every kid used to play. Or Terminator 2, which was bad influence too. God forbid that kind of bad taste. What would come if the little kids took example and became (the horror!) vikings, nazis, huns, or maybe just plain standard soldiers serving in Iraq? Utter nonsense, so obviously banning all violent entertainment is the right way to go, since it does not only prevent wars, mindless killing, global warming, extinction of species, nuclear holocaust, and the attack of UFOs.

It has been pointed that it's possible that those who are more aggressive could possibly play more violent games to blow off some steam. *raises hand* However, it can create something of a dependancy if you don't learn how to deal with it any other way. Even as someone who learned other ways prior to what I consider to be a 'superior' way, it's still somewhat addictive in that when I get pissed, the first thing I think of is "I can't wait to get home so I can blow off some steam." Other methods are only used if I sense the level getting too high and I have to do something immediately or risk...well, something unpleasant. (I really ought to take the initiative on that more often...)

Anyone who is foolish enough to let a video game influence their decisions would just be as gulliable to allow some other source of violent influence to dictate their nature. I agree completely. And I'm not even the type of person who enjoys FPS, and high gore/blood and guts games. An enemy getting gibbed in the BG series is about as violent as it gets for any of my games.

@The Foppish Idiot: You're missing out on a lot. Fragging a foe from point blank with a flak cannon in ut/ut2k4 is really fun.

Sure, adrenaline really comes into play when you realize you will die from one hit and your opponent is surely camping at the biggest health boost - but that doesn't mean it'll cause long-term behavioural changes. Except maybe always scanning places for snipers.

An enemy getting gibbed in the BG series is about as violent as it gets for any of my games. I dunno; I think M:TW is kinda violent. Maybe not bloody, but a few thousand guys cleaving, bashing, trampling, piercing, and so on seems violent to me

:p

People are a product of their environment. If you play violent games, watch violent shows, read violent books and so on, it affects you of course. I don't think video games have a larger influence than any of these other factors.

Just like if you play with barbie dolls, watch olsen twin stuff and read girly stuff you turn into a sissy :p :D unless you're a girl in which case it's the normal progression, kinda like how it was all Voltron and Thundercats for me back in the day ;)

I don't know. Even if I was dumb enough to believe that you could re-spawn after getting blown up with a Rocket Launcher, I've seen it enough times in a video game to conclust that it must hurt like hell. Not that I want to find out...

Fragging a foe from point blank with a flak cannon in ut/ut2k4 is really fun. I don't even know what "ut" stands for. (I'm assuming 2k4 is the year 2004.)

I dunno; I think M:TW is kinda violent. Maybe not bloody, but a few thousand guys cleaving, bashing, trampling, piercing, and so on seems violent to me I agree that the Medieval series is violent, but as you said, there's no blood and guts flying all over the place. When someone dies, they just fall over, it's not look they show them bleeding to death or anything like that. Plus, the Medieval series is not based on gratuitous violence like lots of FPS and the like. With those types of games, the attraction is the improved graphics and the blood and guts flying everywhere. Medieval 2 is first and foremost a strategy game. That's what I find appealing - the strategy that exists on so many levels. It's not just the battles, but city building, diplomacy, relations with nations of different religious beliefs, royal bloodlines, arranging royal marriages, etc. While the fights are what get all the publicity, the more I play, the more I find that it is just one small aspect of a much larger picture. I don't even own a game system like an X-Box or PS2. It's because so many of the games are ultra-violent kill-fests. About the only games they produce that would interest me are the sports games.

You see, one big difference for me is that the games I play, regardless of whether we're takling about Medieval, the BG series, or Sid Meier's Pirates are all based on fantasy or of times long since past. Regardless of the violence involved in those games, someone would have to be seriously delusional (like a modern day Don Quiote) to actually try and re-enact those type of things. Do you really think that people are going to buy a battle axe to go slay orcs, sign up with the Templar Knights to go on a crusade, or purchase a sail powered wooden ship to plunder ships in the Carribbean? There's no means to really re-enact this type of violence. However, when you look at some games - take Call of Duty for example - things like guns and rifles are very real and available. While you can't go kill an SS soldier today, you can certainly kill someone with a gun. Conversely, I don't think it's likely someone is going to go out and get a battle axe, and make believe a person is an orc.

UT = Unreal Tournament. Cool game.

Yes, if you are interested of frag'em'ups. Forget story, characters, interesting mechanics, and everything else but graphics and fragging. You can't even call it particularly violent.

An enemy getting gibbed in the BG series is about as violent as it gets for any of my games. That's nothing, you should have seen Fallout 2. Flamethrowers had people burning alive (and dead), shot guns blasted parts of their bodies off, uzzies turned them into swiss cheese, explosives umm... chunked them, lasers litterally cut them in half (across the waist), and the pulse guns electrocuted and apparently dissentigrated them. Nothing but a pile of ashes. Playing with Bloody Mess was SO much fun!

And I'm not violent... :D

...and the plasma guns melted the flesh from their bones like a wax candle.

Ah, yes. Good ole Fallout. Mind you, Fallout also had a violence control, so if you just wanted to see 'some' blood, you could, if you just wanted to see bodies fall, you could, etc.

Sorry chev, but I'm not convinced. The article says that playing violent video games increases activation of the amygdala. Your conclusion is that there is a link between what people play (watch, etc) and THE WAY THEY ACT.

Of course what you watch/play/read/whatever will have some kind of effect on your brain physiology. You don't need researchers to tell you this. My gripe with the entire "he shot 20 people because he played video games" hysteria is that people jump straight from "has an effect on physiology" to "that's why he shot people". It takes much, MUCH more than an increased stimulation of the amygdala (notice the key word: MORE activation) to drive people to homicide. Notice too that the amygdala is involved in emotional arousal - ANY arousal, including reflexes, fear, and a whole bunch of neurotransmitters, as well as things that are completely unrelated to emotion (such as smell and memory). With that in mind, it would have been surprising to find that the amygdala was not stimulated by violence.

The experiment is also severely flawed. It makes no mention at all of having used a control group where people are passively shown violence. Therefore, it is impossible to tell whether actually playing the game has this stimulatory effect, as opposed to seeing something violent occur (in a movie, or even reading about it in a book and "seeing" it in your mind - the amygdala isn't just related to things that you actually see)

I still wonder whether playing violent video games makes people violent, or whether violent people play violent video games.

I take credit for the positive aspects of my behavior and sole responsibility for the negative...I'll have no god, devil, psychologist, government, attention whore lawyer (Jack Thompson), or video game take the credit or discredit which is rightfully mine.

McDonald's did not make me overweight - it is my choice to eat that swill and chase it with a box of debbie snack cakes. It is not by the grace of God that I honor my parents or am loyal to my friends - those are *my* actions. And no, Satan didn't make me do it...when i've been a dishonorable S.O.B. it was because of *my* lack of character. And when I've been violent it was because I deemed it justifiable and sure as hell not because I played GTA.

Violent games cause an adrenaline rush? Of coure they do. So what? So does skydiving(for instance)...I don't recall ever seeing an avid skydiver blame his hobby for a murder.

In the end, responsibility for poor behavior must be placed squarely on the individual who is behaving poorly.

Well...I believe that violent games have a tendency to indulge the darker aspects of an individual if and ONLY if they have a predisposition towards these things...

For instance, I hate blood and gore and I definitely can't stand all those gory movies like Saw and war movies where guys have their intestines spilling out...

My room-mate however, had a collection of internet clips like the one where the russian soldier was having his throat cut, an Arab guy was getting publicly castrated, animals being slaughtered etc etc...and he thought it was funny... :eek:

I prefer RPGs and strategy games...my roomie loves stuff like Painkiller, Postal 2, F.E.A.R etc...so I think this is a perfect example of what I believe with regard to violence in games...

Ever played Black and White (1 or 2)?
You could eather be a god of peace and love, or war and death.
The point I'm trying to make is that the lives of hundreds of others depend on your choices, and my concious won't let me be evil (sad but true). On the other hand I have no trouble finding inventive and amusing ways of killing people in RST's and FPS's. The effect on the person can depend on the game type, the realism of the game, and the level of involvment the player experiences.

Only kids going bananas after playing a comp game that I have heard of are american kids. And one swedish guy who had played r\l roleplaying stuff. Chopped a friends head of with an axe. aparantly he was a vampire lord.....so I guess he was in-character.

Only kids going bananas after playing a comp game that I have heard of are american kids. And one swedish guy who had played r\l roleplaying stuff. Chopped a friends head of with an axe. aparantly he was a vampire lord.....so I guess he was in-character. If I remember correctly America has some of the highest gun-related crime in the world so it's no real surprise that the kids there would be into gun-related crimes also. America also seems to be the country with a reputation for people who try to shy away from personal responsibility so parents would rather blame computer games for their childrens' erratic behaviour than their own lack of sound parenting.

As for the Sweedish guy, he's obviously a horrible role player as a Vampire Lord wouldn't be so vulgar to use a battle axe, he'd paralyse his foe with his dominating will and then drain his victims blood via the fangs in his mouth. Using a battle axe is just some derranged kid seeking attention.

Well...I believe that violent games have a tendency to indulge the darker aspects of an individual if and ONLY if they have a predisposition towards these things...
I have to disagree. By taking this tack, it sounds like you're on the nature side of the nature vs. nurture debate? As I stated in my previous point I'm on the nurture side. If games like that are all you play, movies like that are all you watch and you have a crap home life where you're abused, then of course you will have a predisposition to violence and all that, because for you it would be "normal".

people seem to be looking at games as black and white lately, some university in indianna recently claimed that they had proof that violent video games had short term effects such as loss of self control, they carried out this study by watching the behaviour of kids after playing games. but i feel that the results were unfair, they failed to mention what games were played, games are not black and white there are alot of grey areas. i can play a violent game such as FEAR, and ill be fine, why? because i kick arse. but then i can play mortal combat, and itll drive me nuts, because ill reach opponents who i cannot defeat, and ill play it over and over to try and beat them and get more and more worked up and frustrated - because i cannot win. the same can be said for nonviolent games such as gran trismo and fifa, if you cannot win you get frustrated and wound up, then you lose a degree of self control.

in the case of the study, they probably had the kide play an annoying violent game so they left the room frustrated and then a non violent game that any 5 year old can beat leaving them leave the room pacified.

I do not think violence in games causes violent behavior. Prehaps the desire for violence draws some people to violent games.

USA Football is a violent game. Martial Arts is violent; some very violent.

Driving brings out violent feelings in many people. I admit that it does in me but so far I have managed to control myself.

Lots of things can cause rage. My computer is one good example.

What I see as an attitude of "Let's wrap everyone up in a cacoon and take responsibility for what they do away from them." certainly annoys me at best and sometimes makes me very angry.

I am responsible for my behavior, the captain of my soul and I do not want anyone taking that away from me. Give me liberty or shoot me!

:smash: :hippy: