Walking Away From Violence

Welcome to buttonmashing.com, a weblog were we talk about video games. If you're new here or you arrived from a Google search, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed and keep up with our site. While you're visiting, why not visit My MiniCity, Joystickland! Thanks for visiting! You can reach the homepage here.

A week ago, my soon to be three-year-old son was being corrected for doing something wrong. He was upset by it. That’s not really a bad thing to be upset when you are corrected. Making your hand into a gun and yelling “Bang! Bang! Pew! You’re dead, daddy!” is.

Before you raise any preconceived notions, my wife and I are very controlling of our two boys (5 and 2) as to what they watch, hear, and play. I only play violent games after they have been put to bed and I even go so far as to hide the games in a closet. Even then, I don’t play many violent games because, presonally, they affect me. That’s not was this post is about. Also, I don’t want this post to delve into the video game violence debate. I just want to share what we as a family intend to do about it.

Two days ago my wife and I were talking late in the evening. I was lamenting my recent poor parenting skills and the feeling like I had not ever really grown up. It was then she mentioned video games. My wife is not a typical nagging video game spouse. She never pressures me or makes me feel guilty of what I play or purchase. (There was a time where she called them my “second wife” but that was me being stupid early in our marriage.)

She mentioned the idea of getting rid of video games. I was surprised by my initial reaction: agreement. I think it surprised her to. Actually, at first I misunderstood her. Her intention was for us to get rid of mature games. Once again, I was surprised by my answer. Let’s do it.

Starting on Labor Day, I took inventory of all my titles and if they met a certain criteria, they were added to a pile to be traded for credit.

Any game with blood was out
Any game that realistically and graphically killed humans was out
Any game that had strong, pervasive language was out
Any game with sex was out (which we didn’t have any that I knew of)

Using the ESRB ratings, the pile started to stack up: Halo 3, Mass Effect, Gears of War, Call of Duty 4, Viva Pinata—animal sex! Ok, just kidding there—, Assassin’s Creed, Crackdown, Bioshock, Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid 4, Okami, Metroid Prime 3:Corruption, Ghost Squad, and recently acquired Too Human.

A couple of things I did find interesting is that all the Wii game’s ESRB rating descriptions used the term “Animated Blood” and some of the ESRB ratings were too vague in their descriptions or maybe even a little off base. For instance, Too Human has a description of “Blood”. Either I am blind or I’ve been desensitized, but I don’t remember any blood. (Maybe in a cutscene I’ve skipped?)

My next step was to examine or remember the specifics of the titles. I decided to keep Okami, Metroid Prime 3, Bioshock, and Too Human. Three of the titles I’m still slowly playing through, and the latter title I didn’t see it as being overly violent or meeting the criteria. It’s new, and I’ll probably trade it in when I find it just sitting there. Bioshock is the one title that I’m keeping that certainly falls in the list above. I am so impressed by its atmosphere that I truly want to finish it. Once I do though it’s gone.

This really only applies to consoles and not my handhelds or PC games. The boys don’t even know I have a DS and PSP and they don’t have access to the PC. Of course, I’ve only got the Hal-Life series, Tie Fighter, X-Com, and a bunch of RTS games on my PC—and I hardly play PC games anymore.

The response I’ve received from offline and online friends has been from agreement to indignant, stupid remarks. Jokingly, someone asked me what I would then play. Actually, I don’t think I’ll miss all that much. There are a lot of games out there that are entertaining and are family friendly. In fact, in the list of games above only two did I really struggle with keeping. In the end, I decided to get rid of them. I hadn’t really played anything from that list in a while anyway. I don’t know if it’s because I’ve gotten older, but overly mature or violent games don’t really impress me that much anymore. Most—and I say most—have become formulaic. I’ve had more fun with games such as Geometry Wars, Everyday Shooter, LEGO titles, racing games, and casual games in the last couple of years more than anything.

We don’t know where our son picked up the gun gesture, but I’m not taking any chances. My only guess is that he may have overheard me playing after he was in bed. More likely, he saw it on TV or a movie. Video games aren’t the only thing we are cracking down on. My wife and I are currently working on TV and movies too. We already are restrictive in what they watch. Now, we are taking it a step further in really policing what we watch.

I believe it all to be for the better. There are so many things my family could be doing other than zoning out to a screen: reading together, drawing, walking, bike riding, just talking, fixing meals together, and playing. Of course, this all leads me to when I am going to play the games I own. That actually brings me to another Gamer Responsibility topic: time spent playing games. (I hope to address that soon.)

This also means that you probably won’t see many reviews or posts from me on violent games. If so, they will be rare. But you know what? I believe that to be ok. Life will go on and my family will be better for it. They (and many other things) come before personal entertainment.

Sickos are everywhere

And some of them have (and play) video games!

In an unrelenting attempt to make the tenuous violence-and-video games connection, we get a story like this. The media will not let up. Look for a ban on video game controllers soon, backed by Senator Clinton.

This deplorable behavior by the boyfriend should be vilified and condemned. He will receive the swift justice he deserves. But did we really need a headline like “Baby killed with video game controller”?

Unacceptable.

April 9, 2008 | Filed Under Violence and Video Games | 2 Comments

How long until?

I am in no way minimizing the horrible shooting that occurred this morning on the Virginia Tech campus. It’s an awful mess and I feel terrible for those that were involved.

I’m just wondering how long until it’s blamed on video games. I haven’t read many news stories recently — maybe it already has.

Update: Just as Josh pointed out in the comments, Kotaku mentions that Jack Thompson was on Fox News spewing his tripe all over the place.

Here is a link to a video of his appearance on Fox News: Jack Thompson on the VT shootings. (I couldn’t make it past the first minute)

More: Rush Limbaugh, the voice of reason.

April 16, 2007 | Filed Under Asides, Violence and Video Games | 11 Comments

Bully watching

So Jack Thompson wants to see someone play Rockstar’s new game, Bully. And it looks like he and his buddy-pal-judgey are going to get their way.

Thompson said that he and the judge plan to watch the game played in its entirety, no matter how long that takes.

Of course, anyone paying attention to the initial reactions to the game knows that there isn’t all the much violence in the game, at all. It’s rated “T”, afterall. So what’s Jack really after? Of course he doesn’t care if there’s violence or not. We haven’t had any substantive controversies lately, so he’ll just make one up. He ~~wants~~ needs to reinsert himself into the public eye and finds his perfect target, another game by Rockstar. He “bullies” his way into this public display, hoping for resistance and the chance to point fingers. And that’s exactly what he’s going to get.

How ironic. Here’s to hoping it blows up in his face. (Figuratively, of course)

Read “Bully for You” at Wired for more info on Bully.

Game Politics has some more information about Thompson’s hearing being denied.

October 12, 2006 | Filed Under Violence and Video Games | Leave a Comment

Gaming and politics

Well, even though this was widely linked last week, I’d be remiss if I didn’t comment on it as well. There was a piece in the Opinion Journal (of the WSJ.com) by Brian Anderson about video games. It’s the same mantra we’ve been hearing but it never hurts to repeat it:

Video games can also exercise the brain in remarkable ways. I recently spent (too) many late-night hours working my way through X-Men: Legends II: The Rise of Apocalypse, a game I ostensibly bought for my kids. Figuring out how to deploy a particular grouping of heroes (each of whom has special powers and weaknesses); using trial and error and hunches to learn the game’s rules and solve its puzzles; weighing short-term and long-term goals–the experience was mentally exhausting and, when my team finally beat the Apocalypse, exhilarating.

And the ever-present challenge to would be gaming-Nannies:

With the next generation of high-powered consoles on the market or soon to appear, gamers will have even richer, more complex virtual environments, many of them nonlinear, to explore. Working through these worlds alone, with friends or–in the ever more popular “massively multiplayer online role-playing games,” or MMOs–with thousands of strangers is far from a “colossal waste of time.” Video games are popular culture at its best. Critics would do better to drop the hysterical laments and pick up a joystick.

Of course, that can be favorably contrasted with this article in the Washington Times about video game legislation, that claims:

For one thing, these laws have tended to be mostly symbolic; the fact that interest in them tends to fade in the absence of newspaper headlines suggests strong elements of political theatrics at play. Second, the laws are regularly struck down by courts for their dubious constitutionality, and everyone including the scourges knows this. Third, more than 9 of 10 retailers have policies restricting the sale of such games to children anyway. All of which begs a question: Just how sincere are the proponents of these laws? Most of them are Democrats with strong interests in easy “moral values” scores. Smells like opportunism to us.

Political theatrics? Political opportunism? Perish the thought!

As an aside, the Opinion Journal mentions the study done by Dmitri Williams at the University of Illinois (which I mentioned here) which uses the game Asheron’s Call 2 for its study. I’ve never played AC2 (or the first one, for that matter), but it doesn’t seem like that game would be explicitly violent or very gory. Is it? Are the violence and gore on the same level as a Resident Evil 4 or a Grand Theft Auto? And if so, can fantasy violence really be compared to a game with more “realistic” characters? Is running over an innocent bystander with a pick-up the same as smashing a goblin with a mace? Just a thought.

Remind me again…

Who was the one playing video games?

April 25, 2006 | Filed Under Asides, Violence and Video Games | 2 Comments

A quick follow-up

Gamestop posted a summary of the Senate hearing on video games, which is referenced in my earlier post about the proposed video game legistlation.

From the review (you can get all the pertinent links, including testimony transcripts here), it seems like the testimony was stacked in favor of the legislation, but there was some heartening quotes, like this one from Paul M. Smith, a partner in the law firm Jenner & Block:

The attorney went on to explain that “Every court to have considered the issue has found ‘violent’ video game laws would not pass constitutional muster because the government lacks a legitimate and compelling interest in restricting video game content. Under well-settled First Amendment principles, expression may not be censored on the theory that it will cause some recipient to act inappropriately, unless it falls into the narrow category of speech ‘directed to inciting’ and ‘likely’ to incite ‘imminent’ violence.”

Unfortunately, that is countered with this argument from Kevin Saunders, a Professor of Law at Michigan State University:

Saunders’ second legal basis will likely prove the most troubling to gamers. This approach would argue that “is that video game play, like the play of pinball machines, is not an activity protected by the First Amendment.” It would legally differentiate the expression of a game designer, which would be protected, from the playing of games, which would not be. As an example, he compared a sexually provocative dancer’s movements, which is a performance and therefore expression, to a gamer playing in an arcade, which is not, even though others were watching him.

This definitely far from over, but there seems to at least seem to be a level of civility between both sides. No one attacked (verbally or otherwise) the otherside, so I guess that’s a good thing.

I guess they’ve never played Grand Theft Auto.

March 31, 2006 | Filed Under Political, Violence and Video Games | Leave a Comment

Listen up, people!

I keep hoping that the more I read articles like “Natural Born Regulators” the more people it is reaching. I know I bang the drum pretty loudly here, but I’m just background noise in the grand scheme of things. This article is another good look at the problem with politicians trying to protect the you-know-who.

From the article:

Indeed almost every important social indicator has been improving in recent years even as video-game use among youths has increased. Juvenile murder, rape, robbery, and assault are all down significantly over the past decade. Aggregate violent crime by juveniles fell 43 percent between 1995 and 2004. Meanwhile, fewer kids today are carrying weapons to school or are victims of violence in schools than in the past. Alcohol and drug abuse, teen birth rates, high-school dropout rates, and teenage suicide rates have all dropped dramatically as well. These results do not conclusively rule out a link between exposure to games and violent acts or promiscuous sexual behavior, but they should at least call into question the “world-is-going-to-hell” sort of generalizations made by proponents of increased regulation.

Heard that before, right? What about this one:

Finally, there might be some cathartic or educational benefits associated with many video games. From the Bible to Beowulf to Batman, depictions of violence have been used not only to teach lessons, but also to allow people — including children — to engage in a sort of escapism that can have a therapeutic effect on the human psyche. Kids know the difference between make-believe violence and the real thing. And many games today are remarkably sophisticated, offering players a “cognitive workout” that is far more stimulating, rewarding, and even educational than much of the other media fare that is available.

Yeah, heard that one before, too. Unfortunately, the one we hear the most is this:

In sum, the debate over video-game regulation is being driven by myths and misperceptions. Policymakers and critics should consider the facts before moving forward with efforts to regulate the gaming industry, especially since such rules could have profound First Amendment implications as well.

And that’s the problem. Those pesky facts keep getting in the way!

(thanks to my bud Rightank for the tip)

March 29, 2006 | Filed Under Political, Violence and Video Games | 3 Comments

Kids don’t get to watch eye gougings anymore

Buttonmashing.com reader Bobster, always the helpful tipster, sent me a link to an article at Reason.com entitled Blood, Guts, and Entertainment: A sanguine take on sanguinary diversions. A great read, as most Reason articles are. The writer, Justin Pete, is reviewing the book Savage Pastimes: A Cultural History of Violent Entertainment in which the author argues, “that violent entertainment is good, indeed necessary—a way to sublimate the vestigial primal urges left over from our hunter-gatherer days” and “our popular culture may be saturated with synthetic gore, but at least we don’t spend our leisure time watching real people have their eyes put out, their limbs pulverized, their sex organs amputated and their flesh torn to pieces with red-hot pincers.” Interesting claims, to say the least. While I don’t necessarily agree that we have “primal urges” to “sublimate,” I do think exploring violence in our culture (especially in the past) is a starting point to refute the hand wringing that goes on now. It seems that a lot of people decrying violence in the media ignore history, much to their convenience.

Justin sites example after example from the book of violence in past entertainment, in order to dispel the myth that “things were so much better (simpler, purer, cleaner, take your pick) before.” The idea that movies like Natural Born Killers couldn’t have been made in 1939 (the year of The Wizard of Oz and Gone With The Wind) is simply a fallacy:

Such a simplistic worldview conveniently forgets that 1939 also brought such films as Death Rides the Range, Six-Gun Rhythm, and The Man They Could Not Hang, advertised with the tagline, “Boris Karloff dares you to see this holocaust of horror!”

But, in the end, the conclusion that violence in the media is not directly responsible for violence of the partakers is never breached in the book. It’s a shame. We’ve said it here before, but no one seems to listen. Just because we enjoy violence in our games (or movies or books) doesn’t mean we wish to participate in it. Being entertained is enough for us. But, as Justin says

… the tweaking [Schechter] delivers to the world’s Chicken Littles —those like Gov. Blagojevich, who writes on safegamesillinois.org that “when kids play, they should play like children, not like gangland assassins”—is overdue. If violent entertainment is anything, it is a mirror held up to a violent culture. Eliminating these cultural reflections won’t do anything to alter the master image.

February 22, 2006 | Filed Under Political, Video Games, Violence and Video Games | 5 Comments

The P300 response

Okay, normally when I read about another “study” that links violence with video games I usually brush it off. The latest one, from the University of Missouri-Columbia, actually seems to have at little more creedence than other studies I’ve read about.

The team monitored the brain activity of thirty-nine games players, measuring a type of activity called the P300 response, which reflects the emotional impact of an image. When shown images of real-life violence, those who played violent video games were found to have a diminished response.

Although they seem to come to reasonable conclusions (read the whole article), I still fail to see the connection. It’s impossible to say whether the diminished response in the the “game players” who played violent video games is due to playing video games or if they already had a diminshed P300 response before they ever played a game. There’s no correlation between their response and actually playing the games. It seems like they need to find a group of people who haven’t played violent games previously, let them play some Grand Theft Auto and Postal, and then run these tests. The lead researcher says:

As far as I’m aware, this is the first study to show that exposure to violent games has effects on the brain that predict aggressive behavior.

Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like a bit of a stretch. But that’s just me, the non-violent player of violent video games. (hat tip: Attempted Survival)

January 10, 2006 | Filed Under Violence and Video Games | 2 Comments

GR Article and Report, Updated

I noticed a lot of people are linking to this article at Game Revolution, which I linked to before and was glad people were taking a second look at this. Then I noticed it was recently updated.

So the murder rate hit a new 40 year low in 2004, good news indeed for those of us lucky enough to live in the United States during this era of peace. The best selling video game of 2004? Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

Good news, indeed.

Update: Not so fast, my friend.

October 21, 2005 | Filed Under Violence and Video Games | 2 Comments

violent video games != aggression

It’s interesting to compare two studies that have been done on violent video games. In one, published in the June issue of Communication Monographs (which is devoted mainly to scientific and empirical investigations of communication processes. Link.), video games are painted in a good light. From the article:

… researchers found “no strong effects associated with aggression caused by this violent game,” said Dmitri Williams, the lead author of the study.

Also

Nor was game play a predictor of aggressive behaviors. Compared with the control group, the players neither increased their argumentative behaviors after game play nor were significantly more likely to argue with their friends and partners.

While the game in question was Asheron’s Call 2, a fantasy based MMORPG, there is an element of violence in the game. You’re killing monsters, after all. Even if they are helpless giant rats. In the end, the article makes a couple other good points. It says that games and their effects are complicated and that, “If the content, context, and play length have some bearing on the effects, policy-makers should seek a greater understanding of the games they are debating. It may be that both the attackers and defenders of the industry’s products are operating without enough information, and are instead both arguing for blanket approaches to what is likely a more complicated phenomenon.” It also says that kids run home from school, where they are bored, to run home to play games and “solve problems.” There must be something good about that!

Now, contrast that to a study that is constantly touted by super-lawyer Jack Thompson, by researchers at Indiana University. (Can we really trust a university that employed Bobby Knight for decades? I kid, I kid). Anyway, this study’s subjects were, “aggressive adolescents diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorders (DBD)”. It would take a super genuis like JT to use a study of “aggressive adoloscents” to prove the point that violent video games have an effect on them. That’s like doing a study of thirsty people to find out if ~~hydrogen dioxide~~ ~~dihydrogen oxide~~ dihydrogen monoxide (~~thanks, Bobster~~ thanks, Good Chem Student) made them feel better. The study proved that aggresive kids’ brains react differently to stimulus than “normal” kids do. This may not be obvious but it seems to logically follow that kids who already suffer from “disruptive behavior disorder” would of course be excited by violent media. The study doesn’t really do much to prove that violent media has negative effects on “normal” kids.

I find it interesting to see what sources of “proof” each side of the violent video game argument uses.

(This was also mentioned on GGA here)

August 12, 2005 | Filed Under Violence and Video Games | 8 Comments

Blaming video game fails for murder defense

MSNBC reports that Devin Moore, the “GTA made me do it” Cop Killer, has been convicted of murder. (Seen first at Evil Avatar)

Jack Thompson’s crusade just took a mean one right on the chin. But it shouldn’t be about that buffoon. It should be about a mentally unstable young man who took the lives of 3 people. Hopefully justice will be served.

This settles it.

Although I didn’t want to continually harp on the topic of video game violence and violent crimes, it has played out that way. In an ongoing effort with other bloggers, I’ve tried to stem the tide of fear mongering and misinformation. I hope that in some small way, this information will find its way to the right people or perhaps some enterprising journalist, actually doing some legwork and background research, will find this searching for “violence and video games.” This is also ammunition for gamers. The next time some trash-clown tries to tell you how video games are making teenagers violent, this is for a “boo-yah” all up in their business.

First is an article from the Economist.com (I’ve included their graphics for convenience). The article is a fair and honest look at the video game industry and avoids a lot of knee jerking. From the article:

Amid all the arguments about the minutiae of rating systems, the unlocking of hidden content, and the stealing of children’s innocence, however, three important factors are generally overlooked: that attitudes to gaming are marked by a generational divide; that there is no convincing evidence that games make people violent; and that games have great potential in education. (emphasis mine)

Did I just read “no convincing evidence”? I believe I did, and I read that from a highly respected magazine. Not some two-bit blogger. Hear that, Mr. Thompson? I’ll repeat it for you: “there is no convincing evidence that games make people violent.” In fact, as we’ll see, the evidence actually points to just the opposite. But it’s understandable that the venerable members of our society don’t understand these “child playthings”.

“It’s just a generational divide,” says Gerhard Florin, the European boss of Electronic Arts, the world’s biggest games publisher. “It’s people not knowing what they are talking about, because they have never played a game, accusing millions of gamers of being zombies or violent.”

Again, this is something that should be brought to the attention of grubby lawyers and bloviating politicians. Play some GTA or Doom, let the storyline guide you and realize there’s something more complex than a “murder simulator.” That’s another great point the article makes:

What’s more, plenty of games, far from encouraging degeneracy, are morally complex, subtle and, very possibly, improving. Many now explicitly require players to choose whether to be good or evil, and their choices determine how the game they are playing develops.

This should could be a small factor into why violent crimes have gone down with video games are becoming more mainstream. The article also points to things critics hate to see — positive things being done with video games. My favorite was the teacher using Myst and its beautiful imagery to inspire kids to write better. Excellent. The article closes with some sobriety that video-game critics would do well to grok:

In June, Senator Charles Schumer held a press conference to draw attention to the M-rated game “25 to Life”, in which players take the role of a policeman or a gangster. “Little Johnny should be learning how to read, not how to kill cops,” he declared. True, but little Johnny should not be smoking, drinking alcohol or watching Quentin Tarantino movies either. Just as there are rules to try to keep these things out of little Johnny’s hands, there are rules for video games too. Political opportunism is part of the explanation for this double standard: many of gaming’s critics in America are Democrats playing to the centre.

The other stockpile of ammo comes from Gamer Revolution from its article, The Truth About Violent Youth and Video Games. I’ve also used the graph to further illustrate the point I’m trying to make.

While it’s not as eloquently written as the Economist piece, the author Duke Ferris did some good research (and documented sources) and found some interesting trends.

Something must be missing. That first graph is the overall violent crime rate, and we’re talking about youth violence here. So I found the data sorted by age, and it turns out that through 2002, youth homicide actually dropped across the board, the only increase being among adults…

The lowest levels ever recorded. In other words, the Playstation era has, in fact, produced the most non-violent kids ever

And when peopl read the next quote, I hope that little light bulb pops up and they think to themslves, quite profoundly, “Oh, yeah. That makes sense.”

To be fair, there have been about 300 studies on the effects of violent media, about 30 of which have been about video games. Most have found little to no connection, although some studies found a small, casual correlation between aggressive people and violent media.

Even if true, this does not necessarily mean violent media has created aggressive people. It is more likely that aggressive people are attracted to violent media.

And there’s more of being mean to the media —

The media in particular loves to bash video games, making sure to point out any time there’s an Xbox within 50 yards of a crime. This is because games are the new competition - every hour you spend interacting with a game is one hour less spent drooling in front of their fear-mongering programming.

Again, please read the whole article. It’s another good read with some excellent links for further knowledge.

So as I said, that settles it. You can look at the stastics anyway you want, there is no way you can say violent video games are leading to violent crimes. It’s a simple as the graphs and statistics bear out — video gaming is becoming more popular, with more and more gamers playing video games and yet violent crime is going down. Way down. So the print out one of those graphs. Tuck it away in your wallet. Next time some tells you that video games are causing the moral decline in our world, politely show them the business.

Update: Great. Now Thompson is going after Capcom for Killer 7. What does he base his reasoning on? An IGN review of the game. This is priceless. You can bet game review editors will be vetting all future reviews with Jack in mind. This man truly is an idiot.

Another Update: From this Slashdot article there’s a link to a long interview with Jack Thompson. I listened to the whole thing, and while I still don’t agree with him and he didn’t make any headway in convincing me, I’ll admit that he is well spoken and made some valid points. He’s a raging narcissist but he’s a lawyer, so that can be expected. Unfortunately, he’s still pointing to all this research linking video games with violence but he still can’t make the link with video game violence and violent crime. A lot of the research he points to (like this Indiana University study) involve adolescents that already have a predilection to aggresive (and violent) behavior. I mentioned this earlier. The link of brain chemistry and violent media can be shown but they still can’t link this to the actual increase in criminal activity. He’s still wrong.

If you have time, listen to it. It’ll make you frustrated and tear out your hair. It’s disturbing, it touches on a myriad of topics, including the GTA grandma, EA and the porn industry are in cahoots (huh?!), and many others.

(On a side note, I secretly thing Rockstar has something big planned for Bully. Everyone thinks it’s going to be a morally bankrupt game like GTA but I think there’s a big surprise waiting for us. We’ll see if that plays out, but it’s something that I’ve been thinking about lately.)

Another another update: The Videogame Pundit has also commented on this. There’s a funny exchange with Scott from VGCats and Jack Thompson here. I believe this comic is what started it. VGCats makes me laugh.