Apparently, Anders Behring Brejvik, aka, that Norwegian asshole who killed 92 people, has attributed videogames as part of his preparation in killing all those people, according to his 1500 page manifesto. I dont particularly care if he did or didn't, but this will no doubt cause an outrage in the religious community, as well as pretty much every idiot who has something against videogames. You just know this is going to give them more fuel to add to their arguments, citing this as a reason why people shouldn't be able to play violent games because, "they incite violent actions and breed mass-murderers." Little do they realise, you cant get adequate weapons training from an FPS. Sure, it may increase your reflexes and cognitive function slightly, but it would help you very little to become a better marksman. Some people may think that they'd be good marksmen because they play a lot of games, but really, it doesn't help as much as you'd think. But, because they're zealots and are trying to "save" us from ourselves, these people are going to blindly support anyone who pipes up, and I can see it happening sooner rather than later, and greatly to our detriment. As a flip side, I can see this seriously hurting Australia's chances of finally getting that R18+ rating we've all been begging for for nearly a decade. The Attorneys General had a meeting about it last Friday, and all states apart from New South Wales unanimously agreed that we needed it. Apparently, NSW didn't want to "rush their decision"... its been ten bloody years, and you still haven't decided? That makes me ashamed to think that theres idiots like this representing the state that I reside in. However, in light of current events, I can see this changing their minds inexorably. So, another loss for us Aussie adult gamers! To get back on topic, ignorance such as this really pisses me off. Its an extremely minor fraction of the population that are influenced by videogames, and an even smaller fraction of those people that act on those influences. Given, this Anders guy didn't shoot all those people because games told him to do it, but some reet is going to paint it up like that, and anti-videogames lobbyists are going to eat it up. Perhaps this was an ulterior motive from him because he had something against games as well? Who knows. Anyway, this is a link to a site that explains the situation a little better. Am I the only person who thought about it like this? Please, discuss.
"Something bad has happened." "Need to blame something bigger to make it seem like it's not the fault of the government or the person involved." "Hey, you kill people in videogames. There's a good one." It happens constantly. As in, all the time. This is nothing new. There's a web page I found once which shows that it's all bullshit. If I find it again, I'll link it here.
What an asshole. I'm sure millions of people around the world play more shooters than him, but haven't gone on a killing spree. (At least not in real life) It's just a shitty excuse so he doesn't get in as much trouble for throwing a *****-fit. I hope that motherfucker gets his ass fried.
Sure, it isnt anything new, but this would be a damn good reason and particularly damning evidence for someone to want to ban violent interactive media. The few things that have happened in the past that had something to do with a person being influenced by a videogame were, excuse the extreme down-playing, very unsubstantial compared to this. I can see the headlines now, "Mass Murderer kills 92, injures hundreds, thanks violent videogames." Its going to be blown waaay out of proportion, but people often blame terrible events on things they dont understand.
As is the way with the media, and as is the way with everything. If you look at all the statistics made up by people who apparently understand this, it's evident it's all complete bullshit. They take out of their asses, and everyone who isn't a gamer believes them, simply because they don't understand it either. And because no one understands it, they go with the most popular and usually most powerful source. Which is the one which will always portray video games, and sometimes music, to be the cause of everything violent.
I love video games and in all honesty, I do think they influence me. Consciously or subconsciously. Daily, I think about curb stomping people like I would in the Gears series. The fact that I even thought of that comparison is enough to say that they do have an influence on the mind. Whether you like it or not, video games impact you, consciously or subconsciously. Deal with it.
I think that most violent video games are unnecessarily provoking, but that's along with other forms of violent media and violence in general. Really is sad though.
I first saw curb stomping in American History X. Because I saw someone doing it I must want to do it now? That is the logic you're conveying. It is not new to video game as medium and has existed since penny books depicting violence at the turn of the 20th century. So, do video games effect people? Sure any interaction with anything affects a person on some level. Does that alter a person's personality? No, as countless legitimate studies have proven, only people who were already aggressive personality types show aggressive tendencies while gaming. So if you think video games are influencing your thoughts or actions in any real way then you are probably the type of person who is prone to those tendencies regardless and if you didn't have video games as your channeled outlet you'd have something else.
I am not of the mind that the 'influence' of video games is an excuse which admonishes someone of responsibility for their actions, but I must take issue with the bolded: The difference between seeing something and the simulation of actually performing the action yourself, with involved motive and sense of personal gratification, even achievement, sets these two examples apart in quite significant terms. One may argue that the example of American History X is more likely to put someone off due to the context of the action, and detachment of the viewer from the person performing the action in the film. In a game, however, it is something you yourself are doing, something you yourself want to do, and in the context of the game it is something you are supposed to do. I can actually identify with what Furry is saying in that the mental process of a snap thought, "I could do this..", is there at times and has undeniably been put there by my gaming experience. The most prominent example I can remember was after a long GTA3 sesh, where I was on the street and saw a nice car. Part of my brain was still in gaming mode and thought "you know, I kinda wana steal that..." but that doesn't mean that even for a second it actually overpowered the logical part of my brain, the bit that observes thoughts and desires like that and comes back with a verdict of 'yes' or 'no.' If it did, I would be more worried about that same conscious part of my brain being deficient and unable to maintain control, rather than the fact that video games were putting new (or enhancing current) desires and subconscious thoughts in the back of my brain. tl;dr: I can see the point being made, and I don't know enough about wider human psychology to comment on the balance between snap thought and conscious control in other people, but for me I don't think adding extra snap thoughts is actually going to manifest itself in action.
As I said, any medium will affect somebody at some level. The important point I was trying to convey is video games cannot change someone's personality. No one is becoming increasingly violent because they were playing cod all night. Not unless that person was already violent to begin with. So, if you see a nice car and have a thought to steal it, then either you were joking with yourself, a conclusion that could have also been achieved from watching a movie about stealing cars, or you would have had that thought regardless because that is the type of person you are. The ability to act on one's thoughts is what dictates our personality. If you continued to stroll on by that car then video games had about as much effect on you as advertising did in what lunch you had that day.
Penn & Teller BS: Video Games pt 1/3‏ - YouTube Penn & Teller BS: Video Games pt 2/3‏ - YouTube Penn & Teller BS: Video Games pt 3/3‏ - YouTube
I think this quote is interesting from that wiki link: I personally find that playing Minecraft, as apposed to blops zombies, makes me a lot less aggravated and more patient. When I play games like **** zombies, I tend to swear more, I lose patience, and I get more aggressive. In addition, when I play blops with a friend, I usually get mad at them for dying or for making me die. When I play minecraft with a friend, sure I'll get mad if they kill me or if they make me die, but that doesn't happen nearly as often since the game doesn't revolve around killing wave after wave of zombies. That and I choose to build things, rather than kill zombies or my friends. So... I think playing different kinds of video games will at least impact your immediate aggression level. Having said all this, the same thing can go with what group of friends you hangout with, the music you listen to, your parent's personalities, etc. etc. To blame this event solely on video games is like blaming your brother because your parents got divorced. There are, most often, more variables than that.
Of course it will, simply for the reason because those are your aggression levels at that time. BLOPS, for instance, is a game in which the goal is to kill without dying. The goal in Minecraft is indeed not to die, but said goal is not as distinguished, and doesn't affect you in any immediate way, apart from you losing some items. There's no penalty for death that is greatly frustrating. My point, which I seem to fail to be making, is that of course video games can cause frustration. Monopoly causes family arguments. I didn't sell my dog to buy a hotel though. Just because they can cause aggression and frustration in that situation does not mean that they would cause you to do something like kill 100 people. You don't see me standing outside punching trees, forever watching my back in case of an exploding *****.
I think the only time I've ever had one of those 'still in game mode' experiences was after playing Forza Motorsport 3 for like 45 minutes, I went out and hopped in my car to go to the grocery store and peeled out of the parking lot which I never do.lol. I think the guy was blaming videogames because he was probably just mad that armor lock is so overpowered.
Why do people assume that people think they're literally in the game? They're not aimlessly walking around proclaiming they're Master Chief. Like Pegasi said, it's more so the fact that you can do something that you've seen in a game, in real life. Obviously, the damage done in real life stems from much more than a video game but being exposed to violence certainly doesn't help. Being on a video game website, I don't think they are inherently bad. They can do some good. Saying that you're not influenced by video games is downright ignorant. If you even think about video game when you're not playing it, then you're obviously already affected. Showing thought of anything means something in your mind has attached onto something. It's almost a matter of losing your innocence. When kids do crazy ****, it may not be a direct result of their gaming situation but I think gaming as a whole may have helped them get to that point. With what Pac is saying, you are either born to kill or not. Which is beyond this debate in my opinion. TL;DR: Video games essentially plant a seed. People snap. **** happens.
i'd think that video games is more the water for the seed to grow. i believe that its down to bad parenting and environment which causes atrocities like these, amongst other more unusual things.
The guy is an anti-Islamic Christian fundamentalist terrorist, and here people are, insisting he wouldn't have carried out the mass shooting if he hadn't played a video game.
I agree. In this case, it does seem a bit odd. Looking back, most of my points are actually kind of irrelevant towards the Norway Killer. My posts were more directed towards the violent acts performed by teenagers. (Which are still greatly exaggerated.)