Hillary Clinton vs. Xbox: GAME OVER

I aint readin' all that because it doesn't matter. The Machine does what it wants when it wants and we're stupid for trying to stop it.
 
[quote name='JimmieMac']I aint readin' all that because it doesn't matter. The Machine does what it wants when it wants and we're stupid for trying to stop it.[/QUOTE]

Im so glad the forefathers took that attitude. :roll:
 
[quote name='JimmieMac']I aint readin' all that because it doesn't matter. The Machine does what it wants when it wants and we're stupid for trying to stop it.[/QUOTE]

C'mon..who doesn't love a letter that trys to stick it to the man? Well, in this case the woman...I think..:whistle2:#
 
Very well written. It probably won't make much of a difference, but it's good to know that some people care enough to come up with a persuasive argument on the other side of the issue.
 
[quote name='supadupacheap']Im so glad the forefathers took that attitude. :roll:[/QUOTE]

But the thing is, he's probably right... lets face it, these days politicians are more worried about getting votes. And the biggest gaming audience doesn't vote, only old people do... old people like Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton.
 
Look guys, I know there is probably an "argument" forum somewhere, but as much as I am pro-games, there are some things that are pretty obvious:

1) The comparison between "Adult" movies and "Adult" games isn't really comparing apples with apples. The fact is, while the majority of parents knew better than to let their kids watch Debbie Does Dallas, I see an alarming number of parents who get their kids whatever video game is popular or whatever game they ask for.

2) This whole "media doesn't affect people's actions" argument just doesn't hold water. If it were true, why do I still have commercials on my TV? Why do advertisers spend $2 million plus on a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl? Does anyone remember the show Jackass and all the morons who almost killed themselves trying to duplicate the stunts on the show? Or how about smoking on TV? Protagonists now smoke with less and less frequency because why?...they don't want to "promote harmful activity to younger members of their audience".

Look, I'm not saying let's censor all games, but seriously people, let's at the very least argue our points on sound reasoning and not simple "no they don't!" logic.
 
Personally, I think this whole thing is going to blow over. Something else is going to grab the headlines and this is will be pushed back to page 7 or so. Its just not that important.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Look guys, I know there is probably an "argument" forum somewhere, but as much as I am pro-games, there are some things that are pretty obvious:

1) The comparison between "Adult" movies and "Adult" games isn't really comparing apples with apples. The fact is, while the majority of parents knew better than to let their kids watch Debbie Does Dallas, I see an alarming number of parents who get their kids whatever video game is popular or whatever game they ask for.

2) This whole "media doesn't affect people's actions" argument just doesn't hold water. If it were true, why do I still have commercials on my TV? Why do advertisers spend $2 million plus on a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl? Does anyone remember the show Jackass and all the morons who almost killed themselves trying to duplicate the stunts on the show? Or how about smoking on TV? Protagonists now smoke with less and less frequency because why?...they don't want to "promote harmful activity to younger members of their audience".

Look, I'm not saying let's censor all games, but seriously people, let's at the very least argue our points on sound reasoning and not simple "no they don't!" logic.[/QUOTE]




Ummm, well for your number 1:
Now that all this news about SEX ON VIDEO GAMES and GTA being recalled, you would expect parents to actually see the ADULT ONLY rating. I personally know of many parents who will not let their kids play Mature rated (or above) games. The parents nowadays just do not realize AO is almost the same as saying XXX. Now, how many parents would let their kids play a game rated XXX? This whole outbreak of criticism is just the adults' way of trying to shift the blame to a game or company and not accepting the fact that they bought little Timmy a game that was not intended for his age group.


And your #2 has nothing to do with what he is saying in the letter.


And I think all the facts he presented qualify as sound reasoning...and not just the "NUH UH!! YOU'RE WRONG" logic
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Look guys, I know there is probably an "argument" forum somewhere, but as much as I am pro-games, there are some things that are pretty obvious:

1) The comparison between "Adult" movies and "Adult" games isn't really comparing apples with apples. The fact is, while the majority of parents knew better than to let their kids watch Debbie Does Dallas, I see an alarming number of parents who get their kids whatever video game is popular or whatever game they ask for.

2) This whole "media doesn't affect people's actions" argument just doesn't hold water. If it were true, why do I still have commercials on my TV? Why do advertisers spend $2 million plus on a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl? Does anyone remember the show Jackass and all the morons who almost killed themselves trying to duplicate the stunts on the show? Or how about smoking on TV? Protagonists now smoke with less and less frequency because why?...they don't want to "promote harmful activity to younger members of their audience".

Look, I'm not saying let's censor all games, but seriously people, let's at the very least argue our points on sound reasoning and not simple "no they don't!" logic.[/QUOTE]

I'll give you number 2, even though IIRC, different studies say different things. But as far as number 1 goes you're arguing from the illogical side. Just because parents don't take in interest in their child's activities that means a form of media must pay the price? They only reason parents know about pornography is because it was around when they were kids. And yet video games have been around for the better part of 3 decades and they all act like it's some new fad. Parents need to at least inform themselves on their children's hobbies and actitivities. It doesn't take all but 30 seconds of your life to figure out Grand Theft Auto isn't made for kids. An adult rating, movie or game, means the same thing... Adults only.
 
Clinton will care as much about this as I dont feel like reading the letter. There is no way u can stop her, Rockstar was in the wrong and everyone pays. The few ruin the privileges of the many, that how shit works
 
[quote name='Tha Xecutioner']C'mon..who doesn't love a letter that trys to stick it to the man? Well, in this case the woman...I think..:whistle2:#[/QUOTE]

Better a letter that sticks it to her than a man.

I wouldn't screw KKKlinton's pussy with Quackzilla's prick.
 
Excellently written letter.

The idealist in me would like to think that Mme. Clinton might read it and be given at least a moment's pause. But her opinion on the matter doesn't even matter to her, frankly. As earlier noted, it is all about the fans her investigation might win her, and pleasing that constituent base. She might read your letter and agree with every point you make. But the mindset of "what about the poor kids?" is just too easy an angle for her to play in a nation of parents.

Nonetheless, I applaud the effort, and am pleased that our ambassador to the Senator exhibits an intellect beyond what I feared when I read about a gamer firing off an angry missive to a politician. Thanks for doing your part.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Look guys, I know there is probably an "argument" forum somewhere, but as much as I am pro-games, there are some things that are pretty obvious:

1) The comparison between "Adult" movies and "Adult" games isn't really comparing apples with apples. The fact is, while the majority of parents knew better than to let their kids watch Debbie Does Dallas, I see an alarming number of parents who get their kids whatever video game is popular or whatever game they ask for.

[/QUOTE]


Yeah, that's pretty much the problem. The parents, not the games.
 
That letter gave me a warm fuzzy; sort of up there with riding a rollercoaster or parachuting, EXHILARATING! Finally an educated individual who speaks on behalf of all gamers. I'm neutral when it comes to politics and vote on the candidate who has the best in mind for me and our country. As for the Clinton's, particularly Hillary, I hope they reap everything they sew. Everyone who follows politics knows why this b**ch is bringing this issue up and that is to gain voters and pull herself towards the middle; middle meaning the invisible line seperating left/right wingers. This letter should not only be sent to Clinton, but every ahole who feels that videogames are destroying our youth.http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/images/smilies/eusa_clap.gif
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/images/smilies/eusa_clap.gif
 
*sigh*

First off, that $90 million in research grants? Joe Leibermann was the primary sponsor, Clinton a cosponsor (and to all you who love to bash liberals and/or Clintons, take note that ol' bestiality himself, Rick Santorum, R o' PA, is a cosponsor as well): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c1090eaoNa::

Additionally, the author takes Clinton to task for making assertions that have no proven background (e.g., video games are bad for children), yet the author makes this stunning display of brilliance:

"The great secret of today's video games that has been lost in the moral panic over "Grand Theft Auto" is how difficult the games have become. That difficulty is not merely a question of hand-eye coordination; most of today's games force kids to learn complex rule systems, master challenging new interfaces, follow dozens of shifting variables in real time and prioritize between multiple objectives.

In short, precisely the sorts of skills that they're going to need in the digital workplace of tomorrow."

So, if I'm ranked highly in Halo 2's XBL rankings, I'll start off with a higher salary? Oh, horseshit. I understand that he's speaking in general terms, but he's combatting Clinton's baseless accusations with further baseless accusations. This kind of nonsense belongs in the New York Post or WSJ op-ed page.

This $90 million allocation bill is date March 9, 2005; is the author using the controversial events of the past three weeks as a means of attacking something that happened in March? Is he accusing Clinton et al. or being clairvoyant? Please, people. While I applaud this person's approach, it is just like most op-eds: poorly researched, causally flawed, and baseless hyperbole. Just because it supports a position that you uphold as well (and what is that position: "keep your hands off my video games!" or "keep your hands off of the ESRB-omitted content of my video games!"?) doesn't make it a good article.

Also, what's wrong with allocating money to research the effects of video games on children? The author argues "what are you comparing it to?" and the answer is simple: long term trends. The author answers his own question by pointing to increasing rates of obesity amongst children. Should we investigate football, which leads to more violence than is scientifically proven of video games? Yes; but it would be foolish to ignore video games entirely.

Are gamers better mathematicians? Are they more or less productive than non-gamers? What about differences between "hardcore" and "average" (based on weekly time spent playing video games) gamers' physique and productivity? What about the number of children they have, and their propensity to be better or worse parents than non-gamers? Face it; this $90 is, with any luck and depending upon the research we get, money well spent.

EDIT to point out that research is claiming computer technology is responsible for children's decreasing rates of spelling; the autocorrect feature reduces the need for people to understand how to spell properly. Kinda like when society moved to the wristwatch, people stopped looking to the sun to estimate the time. It's another form or automation, and it affects us every day.

And I'm going to be the lonely dissenter.
 
Steven Johnson is a fantastic author. I recommened everyone check out Everything Bad is Good for You.

Why do advertisers spend $2 million plus on a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl? Does anyone remember the show Jackass and all the morons who almost killed themselves trying to duplicate the stunts on the show

And advertisements purpose is to manipulate you. That's their purpose. Video games aren't telling you. Jackass people are flat out stupid. There's no real other explanation. His stat about the violent crime was one I found a while back. Juvenile violent crime rates are at their lowest rate since 1982. If games are manipulating our youth to kill, explain that statistic. Kids have always IMITATED what they see on TV, or what their parents did. Kids in the 60s went out and played cowboys and indians and pretended to shoot each other. Now they do that in Halo. And personally, pretending to shoot your friends outside with realistic guns if far more ralistic than any game.

So, if I'm ranked highly in Halo 2's XBL rankings, I'll start off with a higher salary?

That's not what he's saying. He's making a point that it takes quite a bit of thought to manuever and play Halo 2. I doesn't really matter how good you are, but try making a parent sit down and use two analog sticks at once. It takes time to lean, and it requires a nice thought process to do.

This $90 million allocation bill is date March 9, 2005; is the author using the controversial events of the past three weeks as a means of attacking something that happened in March?

And Cliton was attacking a year old game. Her study is still perfectly relevant. She's going to do it, and spend the money. How is this not relevant?

poorly researched, causally flawed, and baseless hyperbole

He's a college professor who's been dissecting media for years. His multiple books will show you his sources.

Are gamers better mathematicians? Are they more or less productive than non-gamers? What about differences between "hardcore" and "average" (based on weekly time spent playing video games) gamers' physique and productivity? What about the number of children they have, and their propensity to be better or worse parents than non-gamers? Face it; this $90 is, with any luck and depending upon the research we get, money well spent.

Why would we need this? This is useless, especially for $90 million. Why don't we spend money to see if farmers grow corn better? Maybe we should study Roger Ebert and see if countless years of movie watching has made him senile (sp?)? This doesn't matter, and to be perfectly honest, by the time this study is over, no one is going to give a rats ass anymore. It will be long since blown over.
 
[quote name='gamereviewgod']Why would we need this? This is useless, especially for $90 million. Why don't we spend money to see if farmers grow corn better? Maybe we should study Roger Ebert and see if countless years of movie watching has made him senile (sp?)? This doesn't matter, and to be perfectly honest, by the time this study is over, no one is going to give a rats ass anymore. It will be long since blown over.[/QUOTE]

It appears that I'm not going to convince you that we need this. But dammit, I'll try.

Suppose that, in the long run, people who play games longer tend to be at higher risk of having heart disease, or other related illnesses due to lack of exercise; who wants to know that? Your insurance company (and by association, your employer) sure would like to know.

The short story is this: there are many areas of study under that allocation, not the least of which is the propensity for deviant or criminal behavior. There are social issues, health issues, psychological issues, economic issues, etc. I don't mind if you want to ignore that video games have these kind of effects, but if you do feel that way, tell me why you play video games at all (since it should have no impact, positive or negative, on you).

You're delving into the realm of baseless accusation by rhetorically asking if farmers can grow corn better; what is it that we know gamers can do better than non-gamers? They can sure smoke my ass in Halo, but if you want to make any causal argument beyond gaming itseld, you're lying. At least, that is, you're lying until this money is used to fund studies that examine the effects of video games, that is. That's when we find out what they can do. ;)

EDIT to allow me to point out that professors are just as capable as the rest of the world in making baseless accusations. Johnson is a neuroscience expert, so when it comes to social issues, I might expect some insight, but not a great depth. It's that whole "I don't come down to where you work and tell you how to make the french fries" issue.
 
If only we had a test group already, a generation of people who played video games through their childhood...oh wait, it's us. All these 20 and 30 year olds who have been playing video games for well over a decade, icluding those fragile early years.
SO, does anyone feel scarred from having played Mortal Kombat, Night Trap, Grand Theft Auto or Eat 'Em and Beat 'Em?
Or was anyone prevented from playing some of these violent/sexual video games growing up and has since thanked their parents for keeping them away from such trouble?

I know of friends who were glad their parents stepped in when they were hanging out with the wrong crowds, or intervened in regards to drug use, but not a single person i know ever mentioned video games as having some harmful effect on them today.

I understand video games has to go thru this infantile demonization phase, no different than the ulysses/dh lawrence trials with literature or the seduction of the innocent phase of comic books. But eventually, it emerges stronger. Once video games has its Maus, you will know the format has arrived as an undeniable form of art.
 
Suppose that, in the long run, people who play games longer tend to be at higher risk of having heart disease, or other related illnesses due to lack of exercise; who wants to know that? Your insurance company (and by association, your employer) sure would like to know.

The short story is this: there are many areas of study under that allocation, not the least of which is the propensity for deviant or criminal behavior. There are social issues, health issues, psychological issues, economic issues, etc. I don't mind if you want to ignore that video games have these kind of effects, but if you do feel that way, tell me why you play video games at all (since it should have no impact, positive or negative, on you).


But I believe we have a group of kids who grew up on Pac Man. They're in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. That's out test group. If they're are ill effects, and they start to show signs of something that may be related to games, then it's time to step in with some research.

Edit: Ah, rub beat me to the test group.

What economic issues do games have? Have you studied that? I don't believe games would have any other ill effects than movies. Why are they not being studied? I'm sorry, but because I play games doesn't mean I have social issues. THEY'RE AN ENTERTAINMENT MEDIUM. What if I read books? Is that ok? What about the ill effects do they provide? It's an attack on games simply because there is a generation of people out there who don't understand them.

what is it that we know gamers can do better than non-gamers? They can sure smoke my ass in Halo, but if you want to make any causal argument beyond gaming itseld, you're lying

They grow with the process of thinking quicker, making decisions quicker. They posses deeper logic thought processes. The research had been done, but unofrtunately, not many people will come out and agree with it, because *gasp* it's not the popular thing to do.
 
[quote name='gamereviewgod']But I believe we have a group of kids who grew up on Pac Man. They're in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. That's out test group. If they're are ill effects, and they start to show signs of something that may be related to games, then it's time to step in with some research.

Edit: Ah, rub beat me to the test group.[/quote]

They might be our test group. I think that studying adults is perfectly fine, in addition to children. IIRC, your posts are the ones that don't think we should spend money to study anything.

What economic issues do games have? Have you studied that? I don't believe games would have any other ill effects than movies. Why are they not being studied? I'm sorry, but because I play games doesn't mean I have social issues. THEY'RE AN ENTERTAINMENT MEDIUM. What if I read books? Is that ok? What about the ill effects do they provide? It's an attack on games simply because there is a generation of people out there who don't understand them.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't studied that, and if I can get my hand on some of that $90 million allocated towards grants, I'd fucking love to. I don't care if it's an entertainment medium, it has an effect on you. You do not play games in a vacuum, it occurs in parts of your day-to-day life, and judging by the fact that you post here and have a blog, it is part of your social life as well. A person with a gaming blog cannot, by virtue of said blog, make a claim that games don't affect them.

Economic effects? Is overall attendance at other events changing as a result of gaming? Are other media selling as well (as a proportion, not an overall number)? Are people eating out as much? Studies of this kind would involve some maniacally large path models (and, oh, how I hate thee, path models). But to think that a hobby that involves $50 investments (for the most part, though maybe not at this site) intermittently has *no* economic effect is simply absurd.

They grow with the process of thinking quicker, making decisions quicker. They posses deeper logic thought processes. The research had been done, but unofrtunately, not many people will come out and agree with it, because *gasp* it's not the popular thing to do.
Click to expand...

Something you're doing here is logically implausible. First, regarding the above quote, prove it. You have no proof that gamers are faster thinkers and decision makers. If you want to deny money be spent to analyze games effects, you'll never have that proof, will you?

Second, the above quote is claiming that games positively affect people. I won't argue that. There are likely positive effects of gaming, and there are likely negative effects of gaming as well. Keep that in mind, and understand that, hand-eye coordination aside, there is little scientific research on what effects games have. If you want to prove that gamers are faster thinkers and decision makers, then you ought to support spending to study games.

Finally, and most importantly, please don't try to claim that games have no effect on you or anything else, and in the next paragraph try to tell me that gamers are faster thinkers and decision makers. It looks absolutely foolish.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Originally Posted by chosen1s
Look guys, I know there is probably an "argument" forum somewhere, but as much as I am pro-games, there are some things that are pretty obvious:

1) The comparison between "Adult" movies and "Adult" games isn't really comparing apples with apples. The fact is, while the majority of parents knew better than to let their kids watch Debbie Does Dallas, I see an alarming number of parents who get their kids whatever video game is popular or whatever game they ask for.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='RaekwonThaChef']Yeah, that's pretty much the problem. The parents, not the games.[/QUOTE]

My point exactly. Parents SHOULD be more educated. They SHOULD do a better knowing what's going on with their kids. I couldn't agree more. Having said that, look around you. They're NOT DOING IT. Do I think the government should raise our kids for us? Absolutely not! But if we can all agree that "Mature" games and movies are not acceptable for kids don't we have some responsibility as a society there? Let's put it another way - should we allow kids to rent or buy porn if they want, and just blame "poor parenting" when they do? Look, a LOT of parents do a great job, but there are unfortunately a lot of parents who do a terrible job and as a society I see nothing wrong with legislators who want to protect kids from poor parenting - especially if they're willing to do the due diligence to study the issue thoroughly and completely.

As stated above, this is all ENTERTAINMENT. They're not taking away your dinner. They're not taking away your freedom of speech any more than they took away your freedom to drive by making it impossible to get a license before you turn 16. Most importantly, they're NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY. They want to study the effects of games and I think that's not such a bad idea.

The final thing that drives me crazy is all the scurrying about gamers do when this kind of thing comes up. The immediate panic borders on Shakespear's famous line "Me thinks thou dost protest too much". When an innocent person comes under the microscope it's not comfortable, but when a guilty person comes under the microscope they panic and squirm like nobody's business. Seriously, I'm not anti-game in any way, but I have never seen such panicking, fear, and outcry in my life. Come on guys, they're not going to take away your precious industry that has economically outgrown the MOVIE INDUSTRY. They just want to make sure 7-year-olds aren't watching and playing with virtual boobies and massive dismemberments on Saturday morning. Is that so bad?

Finally, God bless the Dem's for backing this bill. Finally, FINALLY something I can agree with "their side" on.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Originally Posted by chosen1s
Look guys, I know there is probably an "argument" forum somewhere, but as much as I am pro-games, there are some things that are pretty obvious:

1) The comparison between "Adult" movies and "Adult" games isn't really comparing apples with apples. The fact is, while the majority of parents knew better than to let their kids watch Debbie Does Dallas, I see an alarming number of parents who get their kids whatever video game is popular or whatever game they ask for.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='RaekwonThaChef']Yeah, that's pretty much the problem. The parents, not the games.[/QUOTE]

My point exactly. Parents SHOULD be more educated. They SHOULD do a better knowing what's going on with their kids. I couldn't agree more. Having said that, look around you. They're NOT DOING IT. Do I think the government should raise our kids for us? Absolutely not! But if we can all agree that "Mature" games and movies are not acceptable for kids don't we have some responsibility as a society there? Let's put it another way - should we allow kids to rent or buy porn if they want, and just blame "poor parenting" when they do? Look, a LOT of parents do a great job, but there are unfortunately a lot of parents who do a terrible job and as a society I see nothing wrong with legislators who want to protect kids from poor parenting - especially if they're willing to do the due diligence to study the issue thoroughly and completely.

As stated above, this is all ENTERTAINMENT. They're not taking away your dinner. They're not taking away your freedom of speech any more than they took away your freedom to drive by making it impossible to get a license before you turn 16. Most importantly, they're NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY. They want to study the effects of games and I think that's not such a bad idea.

The final thing that drives me crazy is all the scurrying about gamers do when this kind of thing comes up. The immediate panic borders on Shakespear's famous line "Me thinks thou dost protest too much". When an innocent person comes under the microscope it's not comfortable, but when a guilty person comes under the microscope they panic and squirm like nobody's business. Seriously, I'm not anti-game in any way, but I have never seen such panicking, fear, and outcry in my life. Come on guys, they're not going to take away your precious industry that has economically outgrown the MOVIE INDUSTRY. They just want to make sure 7-year-olds aren't watching and playing with virtual boobies and massive dismemberments on Saturday morning. Is that so bad?

Finally, God bless the Dem's for backing this bill. Finally, FINALLY something I can agree with "their side" on.
 
Why don't the italic tages work? =:(

I don't care if it's an entertainment medium, it has an effect on you. You do not play games in a vacuum, it occurs in parts of your day-to-day life, and judging by the fact that you post here and have a blog, it is part of your social life as well. A person with a gaming blog cannot, by virtue of said blog, make a claim that games don't affect them.

Economic effects? Is overall attendance at other events changing as a result of gaming? Are other media selling as well (as a proportion, not an overall number)? Are people eating out as much? Studies of this kind would involve some maniacally large path models (and, oh, how I hate thee, path models). But to think that a hobby that involves $50 investments (for the most part, though maybe not at this site) intermittently has *no* economic effect is simply absurd.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about blogs? Everything we do outside of vacuum has an effect on us. Posting on CAG is something. Why not do a study on that? Because it's ridiculous. There's no point. I enjoy this debate, I love having it, and people like you on the other side are a joy to discuss with. It's entertainment. People naturally seek it out. Gaming is one entertainment choice people make.

The problem with this is, and I'm sure you can admit this as well, is that Clinton doesn't give a rats ass about video games. She doesn't know nor understand them. She doesn't want to. She's exploiting an absurd controversy which we've seen countless times before. In the process she's throwing away money.

I believe the studies on games affecting other media have been done. I remember reading how games had signifigantly cut into Monday Night Football. We don't need to blow this much money on something like this.

Something you're doing here is logically implausible. First, regarding the above quote, prove it. You have no proof that gamers are faster thinkers and decision makers. If you want to deny money be spent to analyze games effects, you'll never have that proof, will you?

Second, the above quote is claiming that games positively affect people. I won't argue that. There are likely positive effects of gaming, and there are likely negative effects of gaming as well. Keep that in mind, and understand that, hand-eye coordination aside, there is little scientific research on what effects games have. If you want to prove that gamers are faster thinkers and decision makers, then you ought to support spending to study games.
Click to expand...

I think there have been countless studies already performed. There's the Harvard study from a few years back that Jack Thompson brings up anytime he's interviewed. He ignores studies that have proven otherwise. This HAS all been done and no matter what studies they perform, NONE of this will ever be proven. You can't say games make people aggressive or violent. For every kid that is, you have 10 more who are not. There will never be proof here.

For instance, there was a recent one where they found a portion of the brain lights up when playing a game, the same one that would activate when they fight. Of course that section would light up. That's just common sense. They're playing a game involving violence. Does that mean they take that into the real world? No.

Besides, as far as I'm aware (it's been a while since I read the proposal), the study was looking directly at violence in the media and the effect it has. There was nothing proposed to look at if games actually improve coordination skills. Again, check out Johnson's book. His examples are common sense, something a study such as the one Clinton proposed would not acknowledge.
 
[quote name='gamereviewgod']Steven Johnson is a fantastic author. I recommened everyone check out Everything Bad is Good for You.

Why do advertisers spend $2 million plus on a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl? Does anyone remember the show Jackass and all the morons who almost killed themselves trying to duplicate the stunts on the show

And advertisements purpose is to manipulate you. That's their purpose. Video games aren't telling you. Jackass people are flat out stupid. There's no real other explanation. His stat about the violent crime was one I found a while back. Juvenile violent crime rates are at their lowest rate since 1982. If games are manipulating our youth to kill, explain that statistic. Kids have always IMITATED what they see on TV, or what their parents did. Kids in the 60s went out and played cowboys and indians and pretended to shoot each other. Now they do that in Halo. And personally, pretending to shoot your friends outside with realistic guns if far more ralistic than any game.

[/QUOTE]

Ok, let's adjust this for the reality-impaired. Why did sales of branded items such as furniture, clothing outfits, and food products used on the show "Friends" (but not in ANY way "pitched" or "advertised") increase dramatically when people saw them on the show? Why does interest in social causes rise sharply in the days and weeks following an episode of a popular TV series that centers around the cause (but does not "advertise" it)? Why has Hollywood cut back significantly in having protagonists who smoke?

Come back over here into reality man. What people put in their minds has an effect on their actions. Will video games turn Reverend Johnson into Son of Sam? I seroiusly doubt it and I'm not saying that. I'm saying that trying to deny that media has an effect on people and their actions is so ridiculous it denies credibility to anything more a person would say after trying to argue that point.
 
Ok, let's adjust this for the reality-impaired. Why did sales of branded items such as furniture, clothing outfits, and food products used on the show "Friends" (but not in ANY way "pitched" or "advertised") increase dramatically when people saw them on the show? Why does interest in social causes rise sharply in the days and weeks following an episode of a popular TV series that centers around the cause (but does not "advertise" it)? Why has Hollywood cut back significantly in having protagonists who smoke?

Come back over here into reality man. What people put in their minds has an effect on their actions. Will video games turn Reverend Johnson into Son of Sam? I seroiusly doubt it and I'm not saying that. I'm saying that trying to deny that media has an effect on people and their actions is so ridiculous it denies credibility to anything more a person would say after trying to argue that point.
Click to expand...

Simple. People see a table on Friends and say "Hey, I like that sweater, it's cute." They may see a point that says "hey, they're right." You kill someone in GTA and if the idea is in your head to do this in real life, there are serious emotional issues are work here. I'm sure none of us here know the mindset of what it takes to kill someone. We don't know what it takes or what sets these people off.

Media does have an effect, and it's the media that's supposed to. That's undeniable. I never once said otherwise. Lets take Terminator 3. There's a hidden ad on a truck for a power drink. That truck crashes and blows up if I remember right. Now, you may have the brand of that drink in your head, but do you want to blow up a truck after watching that scene? That's absurd. Anyone who has the mindset to kill has countless other factors against them.

If you're not convinced, look at the stats about juvenile crime and its rapidly decreasing rate. They've been on a steady decline ever since Mortal Kombat hit (ironically) and this controversey started. There's no reality check here. Just common logic and sense.
 
The fact of the matter is that the issue is this an M-Rated game to start with. There has been sex in Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude and God of War. God of War had bare breasts and was M-Only. Leisure Suit Larry (M) had sex scenes that were slightly censored but it was obvious what was going on and there are codes to remove censoring. Why no news about it? Because politicaly they don't have the sizzle of GTA. The main isssue is getting the game appropriately rated. There is no way that Clinton or anyone else can say that a sex scene with no visible penetration is going to corrupt children more than killing civilians in the game especially when sex education is taught in school! Anyone who makes that argument is kidding themselves. Until Ms. Clinton can also demand parents make responsible choices for children, her position is a joke. Simply placing the blame on Video Games is asinine.

Also, for the hell of it I challenge Ms. Clinton to access the "Hot Coffee" content on her PS2.
 
[quote name='gamereviewgod']Simple. People see a table on Friends and say "Hey, I like that sweater, it's cute." They may see a point that says "hey, they're right." You kill someone in GTA and if the idea is in your head to do this in real life, there are serious emotional issues are work here. I'm sure none of us here know the mindset of what it takes to kill someone. We don't know what it takes or what sets these people off.

Media does have an effect, and it's the media that's supposed to. That's undeniable. I never once said otherwise. Lets take Terminator 3. There's a hidden ad on a truck for a power drink. That truck crashes and blows up if I remember right. Now, you may have the brand of that drink in your head, but do you want to blow up a truck after watching that scene? That's absurd. Anyone who has the mindset to kill has countless other factors against them.

If you're not convinced, look at the stats about juvenile crime and its rapidly decreasing rate. They've been on a steady decline ever since Mortal Kombat hit (ironically) and this controversey started. There's no reality check here. Just common logic and sense.[/QUOTE]

Studies have also shown that the effect of having your product in a TV-show setting is much more powerful and motivating than having an "ad" that is created to convince the audience. Anyone who has been to college knows that ONE study is not enough to base your entire perspective off of. Very good for the juvenile crime study. Now, you need to cross-reference it with a number of other studies to figure out WHY they found what they found. Was the study biased? What were the factors? What was the cause? Just because juvenile crime decreased doesn't mean video games or media have no effect.

If I did a study and found that lung cancer had increased over the last 5 years and I knew that cigarette smoking had decreased over the last 5 years, does that mean smoking is good for you? Having two things happen simultaneously is a good starting point but it does not necessarily signal causality. Decreasing juvenile crime could be due to a NUMBER of reasons, and could be occuring DESPITE video game violence. If the numbers have dropped 10%, who is to say they wouldn't have dropped 25% without games? Stop grasping at straws. The report is very positive but it's not the end-all, it's just a good starting point. A good place for...say...politicians to start a study on the effects of video games.

Back to reality...
 
[quote name='chosen1s']My point exactly. Parents SHOULD be more educated. They SHOULD do a better knowing what's going on with their kids. I couldn't agree more. Having said that, look around you. They're NOT DOING IT. Do I think the government should raise our kids for us? Absolutely not! But if we can all agree that "Mature" games and movies are not acceptable for kids don't we have some responsibility as a society there? Let's put it another way - should we allow kids to rent or buy porn if they want, and just blame "poor parenting" when they do? Look, a LOT of parents do a great job, but there are unfortunately a lot of parents who do a terrible job and as a society I see nothing wrong with legislators who want to protect kids from poor parenting - especially if they're willing to do the due diligence to study the issue thoroughly and completely.

As stated above, this is all ENTERTAINMENT. They're not taking away your dinner. They're not taking away your freedom of speech any more than they took away your freedom to drive by making it impossible to get a license before you turn 16. Most importantly, they're NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY. They want to study the effects of games and I think that's not such a bad idea.

The final thing that drives me crazy is all the scurrying about gamers do when this kind of thing comes up. The immediate panic borders on Shakespear's famous line "Me thinks thou dost protest too much". When an innocent person comes under the microscope it's not comfortable, but when a guilty person comes under the microscope they panic and squirm like nobody's business. Seriously, I'm not anti-game in any way, but I have never seen such panicking, fear, and outcry in my life. Come on guys, they're not going to take away your precious industry that has economically outgrown the MOVIE INDUSTRY. They just want to make sure 7-year-olds aren't watching and playing with virtual boobies and massive dismemberments on Saturday morning. Is that so bad?

Finally, God bless the Dem's for backing this bill. Finally, FINALLY something I can agree with "their side" on.[/QUOTE]

Seriously if you want to have your freedoms as a video game player tampered with you should on the Jack Thompson support site, not CAG. They are taking something away, you just aren't looking to the future. Even though the average gamer in his/her 20s, the market can't survive without making games for both children and adults. If you take away the more mature market, the industry will take a huge hit. Take a wild guess at what will happen when some gov't backed studied says that mature games are dangerous to children and the gov't recognizes it as such and then many stores will not stock them. You'll have companies refusing to produce mature titles because it's too much of a market risk if only specialized gaming stores carry the items. When the government has to do people's parenting it's usually a response that effect's all people. Besdies it's not soceity's job to be a parent, if the parent does a lousy job is not there for their kid, the child will turn up with some problems with or without video games in his/her life. Say the gov't shields them from video games, are Joe Lieberman, Hilary Clinton & company going to purpose a law against kids drinking too much soda, school bullies and other REAL problems that kids have? If a parent doesnt know what's going in a kids life they won't be there to help them with those issues either.
 
On the topic of why people react differently to such things as killing in games, killing in movies, killing on tv, I think Stephen King puts it best. He said that we are all insane, it's just the people outside jails and asylums who hide it better. We are facing our fears, or at lease showing that we can, when we play these violent games or watch zombie movies on the big screen or tv screen. We all have something inside of us that craves violence or madness or irrationality..some people choose to go out and carve up women, and they get sent off to a cell, and other people go out every weekend to a horror movie or buy a game where you blow off zombies' heads. By companies pumping out all of these "evil" and "sick" movies/games that parents hate for their kids to experience, we all have some way of feeding this "insanity" inside of us..keeping us from becoming the Jack the Ripper-s. Sure - your child may pickup on a sick sense of humor, maybe even a little foul language, but those are things that can easily be fixed. These games and movies that are under so much fire nowadays are appealing to the worst in us and they let all of our sick, twisted realities free. I say, as long as my focus on violence and gore is placed on a Grand Theft Auto or a Dawn of the Dead, then it's perfectly fine - because it is what is keeping me from being angry/violent outside my game room and ultimately what's keeping me out of serious trouble. Why try to take away Grand Theft Auto? I say give everyone a Grand Theft Auto or a Resident Evil - whatever it takes..as long as you keep our sick minds fed.
 
[quote name='neudog']EXHILARATING! Finally an educated individual who speaks on behalf of all gamers.[/QUOTE]

Did we gamers as a group elect him? Just as Hillary doesn't speak for all New York citizens, the OP doesn't speak for all gamers. This latest political mess was created by people making just such quick all-encompassing generalizations.
 
[quote name='Noodle Pirate!']Politicians suck ass.[/QUOTE]
In a democracy, politicians don't suck ass, the people that elect them do.

[quote name='mykevermin']Suppose that, in the long run, people who play games longer tend to be at higher risk of having heart disease, or other related illnesses due to lack of exercise; who wants to know that? Your insurance company (and by association, your employer) sure would like to know.[/quote]

Here's the thing: Hillary isn't calling for this 'investigation' for scientific purposes. How do I know that? Maybe it's because she's a fucking politician. With all the hoopla rumor about her running for president in '08, (which would be another case of the Democrats rolling over and dying, as we're still quite a mysogynist, sexist society when it comes to doling out positions of power), it is, dare I say, blatant that Hillary's 'investigation' is a petty vote grab at the moral supremacist demographic. Not something, you know, useful. Universities do that kind of research.

The short story is this: there are many areas of study under that allocation, not the least of which is the propensity for deviant or criminal behavior. There are social issues, health issues, psychological issues, economic issues, etc. I don't mind if you want to ignore that video games have these kind of effects, but if you do feel that way, tell me why you play video games at all (since it should have no impact, positive or negative, on you).
Click to expand...

Strawman and irrelevant to boot. All living creatures are affected by all aspects of their environment. You're also ignorant to think this 'investigation' will actually be conducted in a logical manner with meaningful findings, if it's actually conducted at all (Hillary might just say it was). But I covered that above.

[quote name='chosen1s']Look, a LOT of parents do a great job, but there are unfortunately a lot of parents who do a terrible job and as a society I see nothing wrong with legislators who want to protect kids from poor parenting - especially if they're willing to do the due diligence to study the issue thoroughly and completely.[/quote]

Oh man, here comes the moron train.

Do you realize what you're saying here? You want to treat the symptom of bad parenting, (parents not knowing what they're buying for their kids, or not caring), but you don't actually want to treat the issue of bad parenting itself. Why not spend that $90 million on researching parents' beliefs versus the actual choices they make regarding what media their kids are allowed to view, and the cleft between the two?

I'd be far more interested in why parents who aren't comfortable with the content in, say, GTA:SA, are nevertheless buying it for their kids and then subsequently complaining about the content. Is the rating system ineffective? Are parents not researching their purchases? Does it sound 'not that bad' on paper, but is then surprisingly offensive in motion? Or are they just that fucking stupid?

Study on the 'effects of videogames' would be all well and good, sure. But in response to this scandal, it has absolutely no rhyme or reason.

When an innocent person comes under the microscope it's not comfortable, but when a guilty person comes under the microscope they panic and squirm like nobody's business. Seriously, I'm not anti-game in any way, but I have never seen such panicking, fear, and outcry in my life.
Click to expand...

Jesus. Spoken like a National Socialist.

I don't really know what to say to that, other than "Get off your high horse," and "shut the fuck up."

It doesn't take a gaming brain surgeon to realize that when the horribly broken, backward, witch-hunting American Government gets involved in simple matters like a person's choice of (legal) entertainment, things tend to change for the worse. ESPECIALLY under the current atrocity of an administration.

Finally, God bless the Dem's for backing this bill. Finally, FINALLY something I can agree with "their side" on.
Click to expand...

Republican scum, I should have known.

Here's a wakeup call: when someone 'squirms,' it's not because they're guilty. It's because they've still got fight in them--they've still got true American spirit, not that fake, canned, corporate-approved, Support-our-Troops sopository your republican overlords have been ass-fucking you with every morning when you wake up. There are people out there who KNOW that YOU are the ENEMY, that you are an ABERRATION of what an American is, that you are a CORRUPTION, a SHEEP, a SLAVE and a TRAITOR to this fine country and what it once stood for.

Just because you don't resist when you get fucked up the ass anymore doesn't mean the people out there resisting such a forced psychological sodomy are wrong, or dirty, or untrusting, or guilty of whatever crime the hairy, pot-bellied, sweaty guy with the stinky chode says they are as He beckons for them to bend over and recieve His Divine Judgement.
 
[quote name='chosen1s']Studies have also shown that the effect of having your product in a TV-show setting is much more powerful and motivating than having an "ad" that is created to convince the audience. Anyone who has been to college knows that ONE study is not enough to base your entire perspective off of. Very good for the juvenile crime study. Now, you need to cross-reference it with a number of other studies to figure out WHY they found what they found. Was the study biased? What were the factors? What was the cause? Just because juvenile crime decreased doesn't mean video games or media have no effect...

Stop grasping at straws. The report is very positive but it's not the end-all, it's just a good starting point. A good place for...say...politicians to start a study on the effects of video games.

Back to reality...[/QUOTE]

I never made any mention against product placement. I agree. You completely skipped my response to it. That shows nothing. Just because someone buys a sweater they liked when Jennifer Anniston wears it doesn't mean that same person will think "hey, I'll commit a muder today" after that person watches the Terminator.

The statistics are something that critics fail to use. They claim our youth are more violent then ever, yet, crime rates are down. Do I know, personally, if it's because of games? No, no more than you do. However, how many times have their been interviews with a Jack Thompson where he says kids are more violent today than ever? Whether or not the numbers are down BECAUSE of games is irrelavent. They're down, and it's signifigant enough to note and bring into this debate.

You keep telling us "research!" We don't need it. It's been done to death. Psycologists and others are on both sides. There's no concrete proof, and it's doubtful there ever will be.

You're acting like you're smarter than anyone here, and it's insanely frustrating. The one year of college quote is an obvious attempt to slide an insult in there, and it's not going to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top