Librarium Online Forums banner

Computer games: Good or bad?

1K views 31 replies 21 participants last post by  The_Giant_Mantis 
#1 · (Edited)
I am sure many of you have been following the recent debate in the USA on whether the allegedly violent nature of certain computer games can have an ill effect on the opinions and morals of children playing them. Especially Senator Hillary Clinton has been prominent in this debate, demanding that the President and Congress launch a 90-million-dollar investigation of the impact of electronic media on children’s “cognitive, social, emotional and physical development”. Especially games such as Grand Theft Auto have been condemned by Hillary Clinton as a “major threat” to moral health in the United States.

So far I have been hesitant to form my own opinion on the matter. I personally don’t seem to show any signs of corruption from the hours I’ve spend in company with my computer, but research has been claimed to show that while violent computer games rarely cause serious problems in healthy families, they could have an adverse effect on children lacking social support and being left alone for many hours to basically be raised by the TV or computer.

However, today I came across a very interesting open letter to Senator Hillary Clinton from Steven Johnson, author of the book ‘Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter’, who challenges the opinion that computer games – even the violent ones- are necessarily bad for children:



"Dear Sen. Clinton:

I'm writing to commend you for calling for a $90-million study on the effects of video games on children, and in particular the courageous stand you have taken in recent weeks against the notorious "Grand Theft Auto" series.

I'd like to draw your attention to another game whose nonstop violence and hostility has captured the attention of millions of kids — a game that instills aggressive thoughts in the minds of its players, some of whom have gone on to commit real-world acts of violence and sexual assault after playing.

I'm talking, of course, about high school football.

I know a congressional investigation into football won't play so well with those crucial swing voters, but it makes about as much sense as an investigation into the pressing issue that is Xbox and PlayStation 2.

Your current concern is over explicit sex in "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." Yet there's not much to investigate, is there? It should get rated appropriately, and that's that. But there's more to your proposed study: You want to examine how video games shape children's values and cognitive development.

Kids have always played games. A hundred years ago they were playing stickball and kick the can; now they're playing "World of Warcraft," "Halo 2" and "Madden 2005." And parents have to drag their kids away from the games to get them to do their algebra homework, but parents have been dragging kids away from whatever the kids were into since the dawn of civilization.

So any sensible investigation into video games must ask the "compared to what" question. If the alternative to playing "Halo 2" is reading "The Portrait of a Lady," then of course "The Portrait of a Lady" is better for you. But it's not as though kids have been reading Henry James for 100 years and then suddenly dropped him for Pokemon.

Another key question: Of all the games that kids play, which ones require the most mental exertion? Parents can play this at home: Try a few rounds of Monopoly or Go Fish with your kids, and see who wins. I suspect most families will find that it's a relatively even match. Then sit down and try to play "Halo 2" with the kids. You'll be lucky if you survive 10 minutes.

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.

Consider this one fascinating trend among teenagers: They're spending less time watching professional sports and more time simulating those sports on Xbox or PlayStation. Now, which activity challenges the mind more — sitting around rooting for the Packers, or managing an entire football franchise through a season of "Madden 2005": calling plays, setting lineups, trading players and negotiating contracts? Which challenges the mind more — zoning out to the lives of fictional characters on a televised soap opera, or actively managing the lives of dozens of virtual characters in a game such as "The Sims"?

On to the issue of aggression, and what causes it in kids, especially teenage boys. Congress should be interested in the facts: The last 10 years have seen the release of many popular violent games, including "Quake" and "Grand Theft Auto"; that period has also seen the most dramatic drop in violent crime in recent memory. According to Duke University's Child Well-Being Index, today's kids are less violent than kids have been at any time since the study began in 1975. Perhaps, Sen. Clinton, your investigation should explore the theory that violent games function as a safety valve, letting children explore their natural aggression without acting it out in the real world.

Many juvenile crimes — such as the carjacking that is so central to "Grand Theft Auto" — are conventionally described as "thrill-seeking" crimes. Isn't it possible that kids no longer need real-world environments to get those thrills, now that the games simulate them so vividly? The national carjacking rate has dropped substantially since "Grand Theft Auto" came out. Isn't it conceivable that the would-be carjackers are now getting their thrills on the screen instead of the street?

Crime statistics are not the only sign that today's gaming generation is doing much better than the generation raised during the last cultural panic — over rock 'n' roll. Math SAT scores have never been higher; verbal scores have been climbing steadily for the last five years; nearly every indicator in the Department of Education study known as the Nation's Report Card is higher now than when the study was implemented in 1971.

By almost every measure, the kids are all right.

Of course, I admit that there's one charge against video games that is a slam dunk. Kids don't get physical exercise when they play a video game, and indeed the rise in obesity among younger people is a serious issue. But, of course, you don't get exercise from doing homework either."




So, who do you think is right? Are computer games really bad for children’s mental and moral development, or might they even promote it? Can a game such as GTA promote real-life violence, or serve as a way for aggressive teenagers to vent their anger without anyone getting hurt? Have you yourself become more insensitive to violence after playing GTA or DOOM or whatever else we have been exposed to? And would you let your own siblings or children play such games?

~Grephaun.
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
I can't remember the magazine I read the article in, (might have been last months EGM), but the author of the article compared federal crime rate trends over a 10-15 year period with the release of game platforms and games like Halo and GTA. Just by a simple comparison, the rate of crime for almost every age group dropped, as this open letter said. I'll see if my friend still has the magazine and I'll scan the graph chart and post it.

EDIT: I'd also like to weigh in on the "Hot Coffee" issue that got Sen. Clinton's man-panties in a bunch. I looked into the mod when I heard about it. I read articles on it and spoke with a friend of mine who was morally outraged that this was in the game.

First off, the game is basically rated R. No one under 17 should own it or play it according to that rating. Shame on the parents and shame on the retailer of the game.

Secondly, it is incredibly difficult to access those sections of the game. You need to be able to access the pure code on the disk, find the section that has that mini game, and then run it. I don't know how many 14 year olds are capable of doing that on their parents Dell.

Third, in their defense, Rockstar did decided to remove the mini game from the playable copy. Having taken coding classes (which I was insane to do in the first place), I can see why they left it in the game. It's sometimes just easier to disable the code than remove it and rewrite things around it.

Finally, I don't know how many of you have played GTA, but it takes alot of time and effort on the part of the Girlfriend mini games to get to what would have been the Hot Coffee game. I think it takes a minimum of 15 dates to "get in her pants". If you ask me, the girls in GTA are more respectable than some women in the real world.
 
#3 · (Edited)
No, I do not think computer games are bad for children. In fact I believe that in some circumstances computer games can actually be educational and that you can pick up certain skills from it (Though I don't mean that games as Doom, Quake, Unreal, whatever shoot em up game is educational, but they almost always have some sort of complex problem solving. But games as SimCity, Tycoon Games, Championship Manager can be educational in the ways of economics, and there are some games that can be a good history lesson too).
But even though shoot em ups often gets blamed for a lot of today’s violence I think they can be very good, because most of today’s online shoot em ups is based on the concepts of team work, and call me a looser but aren't team work quite important?

As for the letter to Clinton (I hope that one ends up on a certain Jack Thompson’s desk), it contains a lot of very interesting information, also some stuff that I can relate to myself, when I get pissed, I usually play a round of UT to blow off some steam, because getting out and bust someone’s head isn't that good, and I dunno, but seems quite much better, both for me and the people in my area.

Also, this discussion about games being bad for kids, it's only a vicious cycle, just a couple of years ago, they blamed live and pen and paper rpgs for the violence, before that it was the movies that got the blame. Meh, it will probably Passover and they'll find a new scapegoat.

And to quote (I think it was said on Penny Arcade or CAD) "Video games doesn't create violence, ignorance does."

Offtopic edit : Damn Greph, beat me too it, thought about starting a similar thread about this yesterday, though that one was more based on Jack Thompson and his stupid Charity idea (though I love how the guys on Penny Arcade showed how much better we gamers are than him)
 
#4 · (Edited)
To answer the question in your title I would say both.

I don't see any point in being able to slap hookers around or carjack anyone.

But...

I also don't see the value in games where you play as a sniper trying to get as many headshots as possible, or in soccer games. <wow, soccer is so freaking pointless in real life and now they make video games of it :x ??!!>

So that's just me.

I don't read romance novels either but I'm not going to deny the market for them their right to read whatever senseless drivel they consider entertaining.

Kids aren't learning bad behaviour from games, they learn it from the news, or worse, from the real environment they live in. If parents take a more active part in their childrens upbringing these games won't be a problem. In the end as long as the only thing getting damaged is little groups of pixels then why worry?

I believe it's just another example of political sensationalism meant to try to draw attention away from real issues and give people the impression that some politicians are 'doing the job of making the world a safer place!'

The charleston, the sock hop, D & D, rock and roll, punk and grunge all survived their generational assaults.

In the end this will all blow over and in ten years something else will take it's place as:

"The Thing That Offends The Older Generation!!" <echo, echo, echo....>

edit1> after I posted this I got a mental image of a man that was in his 60's 500 years ago sitting on his porch shaking his cane as children ran by with their new globes...."Damn, younguns runnin' around thinkin' the world is round! THE WORLD IS FLAT I TELL YOU!! FLAT!! Someone needs to learn them whipersnappers what's what!!

edit2> Yeah, I don't know what edit1 has to do with anything either!
 
#5 ·
looks around, over shoulder, under feet

Has anybody seen my rant?

Hold on, it's already been used. Ya know, I hate it when I'm ready to rant and it's in use. Oh well. Anyway, I concur, Senator Clinton reminds me of a lot of the fascist paranoia I heard during the 80s about D&D.

Err.... When you're all done with my rant may I have it back please?
 
#7 ·
thats the one thing that ****s me the most. what the hell is wrong with videogames for christs sake. they are harmless entertainment. if you want to ban video games, ban every movie with violence or adult themes, every book with violence or adult themes, every newspaper aritcle, etc.

now, if you dont follow the ratings, then its your own fault for being such a idiot. would you let your 6 year old play san andreas?

god, people can be so bloody ignorant. the video game industry makes more than the movie industry aswell.

i play lots of 1st person shooters like quake and raven shield. im not overly agressive. sure, start **** with me and i'll defend my self, but playing violent video games dosent make me a killer in waiting. i've been playing vice city on pc lately, yet im not out on the streets stealing cars and killing people in alleys.

what amazes me the most is how people over estimate how impressionable kids are.
 
#8 ·
Personally i think anyone who can be influenced into doing things by watching them in a film, computer game or other media has to be unhinged to begin with!

Games have the age certificate for a reason, if we've got to make all forms of media sensitive to minors on the off chance their parents arn't sensible enough to realize they're not old enough then i fear for us all!
 
G
#9 ·
To answer the question: They are good. (I might be able to get hold of something to do with why they are good and I'll add that in later).

That letter is fascinating. It is good to see that some people are actually being sensible about the issue rather than screaming for the heards of Rockstar and a ban on computer games.

Although to be honest these sort of argumanet vrop up every few years. It's just computer games turn this time. It's really pathetic but it will eventually pass on and move onto the next thing.

As for GTA: If you buy an 18 rated game for your child then don't be suprised if it's not suitable for them:rolleyes: (I mean come on... doesn't take a genius to see that).
 
#10 ·
Speaking from personal experience alone, I'd actually suggest that young males require large ammounts of simulated violence and competition in order to produce healthy adults.

In the past, men would define themselves by going to war, or hunting. Nowadays, war is too dangerous as the tools we use have become much deadlier, and hunting is limited due to an abnormally high human population, and lack of game in most areas.

It seems logical to me to create artificial simulations to excercise those violent, competative urges. Sport is one, violent games are another, gang membership is another. Rather than simply declaring violence unnatural (rather impotent, I think, thousands of years of history demonstrate otherwise), perhaps it would be more helpful to simply define what forms of simulated violence we will allow. It seems preferable to me, for example, for kids to be blowing the crap out of each other in fantasy worlds than beating up rival football supporters or joining gangs.

To summarise.. Violence is natural. It isn't going to go away just because it doesn't fit in with modern society. It seems better to have a sensible consideration of what forms of violence can be tollerated, than to try and completely shut out an intrinsic part of human nature.
 
#11 ·
Well the most important thing is to realise where life end and fantasy starts.


You've all heard about the deluded individual that commited suicide because there eq char died, or the crazy d&d players (not vg, but wha hey).

this leads the anti gamer nuts to believe that if one person is crazy enough, than the rest should be.....
 
#14 ·
I don't view games as being a bad or good influence, in my views they have an up side and a down side.

On one hand they do allow for the natural violence to be harnessed and focused on something else other than taking it out into the real world and it can be a relaxing experience with gaming. They allow for us to channel all our anger into killing something fake and not real, but they also have an other effect. They do seem to involve much use of brain power - well certain games - with the puzzle solving and other such problems. This can have a good effect on a young mind, increase their co-ordination; problem solving and giving them ways to think outside the box.

But as always there is a negative side. Exercise. Something that I have noted, well I think it's just more than I who has done, that there is a larger lack of children outside during the summer/spring holidays from schools. Many will stay inside so that they may complete that hard mission or before their friends. This equals a lack of exercise and so a fatter nation (IMO anyways), this goes hand in hand with TV and the internet in my opinion. I see less children spending time outside, running about and enjoying themselves. When I was ten to fifteen I was hard to held within the house, we were always outside playing - be it football (soccer to those who aren't English) or just general playing about. And in this way gaming has an adverse effect upon the world's young people.

As to age limits, I see no problem there. The limits are upon the product for reasons if a younger child gets to view them because a parent/sibling/friend brought them it then that person deserves the blame. The limits are there to protect people from the things seen - if you break them then only you are to blame.

KU
 
#15 · (Edited by Moderator)
Well, I don't have to worry about gaining weight.

I actually went from 135 lbs. to 130 lbs. for some strange reason...

God, don't even talk to me about Xbox.......

All I got is my computer, LO and WoW(recently....)

The reason I do stay thin is party because of my High Metabolism (if I have one.....)

And the fact that I have a very active life.

As in many cases I eat more than I should!

And, just to make things even odder, Muscle weights more than fat, and IMO I've got some fair muscles.


Mike
 
#19 ·
ah.

G4 is the company that took over TechTV. Which is also generally unknown. Anyway, last night they did a really interesting report on Violence in Video Games.

The most fascinating thing that I heard is when they were talking about the thousand studies that point to video game violence being linked with real violence. As it turns out, in 2000 the Surgeon General examined all the available literature and research and officially declared that there was no connection. In my mind, that's pretty darn definitive.

Also, they talked about the two big video game violence lawsuits. There was of course Columbine, but also another shootout that occured in a different school. In the second case, the entire lawsuit started because the defendant said: "Life is like a video game. You have to die sometime." That was the only justification.

And then Columbine. It was really kind of sad. Two kids assembled an arsenal, including multiple automatic weapons. Without their parents noticing. Without gun licenses. Now, I'm a pretty smart guy. But I can't think of a single way to acquire that many guns, including several assault-level weapons, while being prohibited by law to purchase any of them, in one day. It would take months. You have to raise a staggering amount of money for a high school student. You have to find someone willing to purchase automatic weapons for you, probably costing even more in bribe money. You have to route multiple weapon purchases through that person, adding time for waiting periods. Then you have to train to use the guns. Contrary to popular belief, video games are not sufficient training to use any firearm in the world.

WHERE WERE THEIR PARENTS DURING THIS PERIOD?

I'm sorry, but the fault lies entirely with the parents. Also, the time involved implies a long, thought-out process leading up to this event. That's not what would happen if these kids thought of violence as a casual thing.

Then the prosecutors (sp?) started talking about how the military uses video games in training. The guy actually said "The army uses the exact same games to overcome soldiers' aversion to killing." This is completely incorrect, which was swiftly pointed out.

The military uses simulators. These games include perfect reproductions of real weapons as peripherals, teaching how to use them. Kickback and actual bullet simulations are used to teach actual aiming skills. The guns are weighted to teach how to overcome the quite significant weight in combat. Squads train together, teaching teamwork. It is as realistic as possible to teach soldiers how to fight. Even then, commanders complain because the simulators do not reproduce the battlefield accurately enough to train properly.

The natural aversion to killing is overcome in field exercises. It has been well documented that simulator time has no effect on the willingness to kill a real person. Soldiers go through bayonet exercises to overcome their aversion to killing. They are run through exercises with as much violence being pounded into their head as possible, and it still doesn't always work. If someone can kill their first human and feel no remorse, it has nothing to do with games and everything to do with a powerful sense of purpose or mental instability.

I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no connection between violent video games and real world violence. Partly because I'm a perfect case study. I've beaten Halo on Legendary, Halo II on Heroic, Half-Life 2 on Hard, Doom on whatever the heck they call Normal, Deus Ex and Deus Ex II, the first teo Splinter Cell games, four different 007 games on various difficulties, Fable as a maxed-out evil character, most of GTA3, and a good deal of GTA:VC. I have a stronger sense of morals than most people I know. I have personally protected people I had never met before from harm simply because they didn't deserve it. I've never smoked, never done drugs, remain a virgin at 16 (not as trivial as you might think), plan to remain a virgin until I'm married, have never drunk alcohol and don't plan to. I have not been adversely affected in any way by the violence and rampant vice in the games I play. And, quite honestly, I don't think any mentally stable person is.

They're not real.

Seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE Hersh
#20 ·
Wow

Neo, that was deep. If what you claimed about your personal haven't dones is true, kudos. I've done most of those you haven't, and most of them were done the first time under duress from peer pressure. Like I said serious kudos, buddy. And they say that kids today have no sense of strentgh. Ah, what the heck, have a cookie.
 
#21 ·
There are a lot of good games too, but media usually only points out the bad ones. Video games have in most cases no influence on moral, they are simply to unrealistic, but they can more often than not have a positive influence on your intelligence.
Intellectually challenging video games are great brain workout, it doesn't have to be a boring chess game, it can be an RTS or a Role playing game where you solve riddles or something. As long as you actually have to think when playing, it is far better than spending that time watching comedy shows on TV. Most strategy games are good for this, especially Civilization or Shogun where strategy and history are very important and are also rather informative, even if not always accurate.

I almost never watch TV, it just isn't stimulating enough to keep me entertained. Documentaries and movies are about the only things I ever care to watch.

What do you think? Can video games be educational? When I was 7-8 years old I started to learn English through playing video games, see where that got me. I had an obvious advantage in school since I'd already started learning English on my own.

// Viktor
 
#22 ·
I'd argue TV is significantly worse for children than computer games. Studies show that, when watching TV, a large portion of our brains shut down or experience reduced activity. Because computer games generally demand a level of interaction, there's not quite the same element.

I think one the greatest things about computer games is their ability to stimulate the imagination. A lot of the best modern computer games actually have reasonably good stories and settings, or well thought out visuals. I think there's an increasing sense that a really good computer game should be an artistic achievement as well as fun.

While I'd hesitate to say that computer games actually make people smarter (yes, they do excercise many cognitive regions, but only in a limited capacity. I'm not convinced they're actually increasing the measurable intelligence of the kids who play them.) I think what's more important is the capacity of the ideas within the games to interest or stimulate the mind.

Imagination itself needs to be more recognized as a faculty of intelligence. If games can train the imagination in the same way books used to, I think they are capable of having a positive effect on the world.

As for the violence. If games weren't violent, they wouldn't sell. I think this says a lot about the young, male psyche. It craves violence, and I think it's healthier to satiate that need in a fantasy world than to have it impress itself upon real life. Just because a game is violent doesn't mean it can't also be mentally stimulating, and positive in its effects.

My ideal example would be fallout 2. Anyone whose played that game will probably remember it could well turn into a moral nightmare if you set out to make it as such. It was gory, gritty and portrayed a world which was harsh, often mysogynistic and where the weak could be stamped on (albeit sometimes with consequences.)

But I was raised on it as a child, and it helped to shape me into the person I am today. I appreciated the ability to make moral choices, rather than being forced into a paladin role by the game mechanics, and, while I wouldn't say the game was intelligent, the theme and 'puzzle' elements had enough substance in it to keep me thinking. I wasn't adversely affected by the morality at all, if anything, it helped me immensely by teaching me a sense of moral relativity. It moved me from the more childlike 'don't do that because it's bad' mentality, to the 'don't do that because it will have consequences for person X' mentality, significantly earlier, I think, that would have happened otherwise.

I think people have made good points, everyone is different. Ratings are there for a reason, to try and protect people who might be adversely affected by exposure to violence or moral ambiguity. But, for most of us, exposure to such things is a part of life and growing up, and it should be. Every society before us had to immunize its children to suffering and death on some level, I think perhaps computer games are our way of doing the same.
 
G
#23 ·
I've been trying to get this together for a while now and I've finally got it :D

My dad is a high school teacher and he attended the SETT 2005 (link) conference. Obviously this has a leaning towards education but many of the points are relevant.

It was a speech given by a Marc Prensky. It was called "Engage Me or Enrage Me: Educating Today's 'Digital Native' Learners". Below is a video of the speech.

http://stream.ltscotland.org.uk/ltsprojects/sett2005/keynote2.wmv

If you fast fowards the video to 1hr 57mins you get his entire speech. It is about an hour long so be warned.

I've also included my dad's notes but they aren't exactly complete:

'"Engage Me or Enrage Me: Educating Today's 'Digital Native' Learners"
Marc Prensky:

Today's students are not the one's we were trained to teach.

"If a learner is motivated you cannot stop him" Will Wright
"Brains like ours alter profoundly to adapt to the technology that surrounds them"


Yesterday's Students - Today's Students
Conventional Speed - Twitch Speed
Step by step - Random Access
Linear processes - Parallel processing
Text first - graphics
Work orientation - Game orientation
Stand alone - Connectivity

Digital Natives vs. Digital Immigrants

All learning takes effort - Engagement - motivation and passion. Most school is boring.
Engagement is more important than the content. Content will not do it.

"What people put into the Internet is more important than what you get"
Tim Bernard Lee

Today's learners want it to be fun.

The good students are most in need of powerful tools.
"Play School" kids - "play the game"
"Tuna Salad" kids - "not interested"

The Bifurcated System - School (Credentials) and After-school (learning)

Games: Mini - one noted - trivial (5-60 minutes)
Complex - 8-100hrs.- Not Trivial

There is a contest: Not Graphics - Ideas!

Commercial games
Custom games
Talk about games
Complex games designer principles,

Classrooms are not designed for computer games.

1. Focus on user engagement
2. Frequently making decisions
3. "Levelling up"
4. Adaptivity
5. Iteration
6. Evaluation of game play

We need to "unlearn" our learning theories.

What can you learn from a mobile phone?

Change attitudes and change our approaches.
Ask yourselves the hard question
Share successes!
It isn't easy but we need to do it
So basicly Marc is arguing that computer games are good and that the ideas within them should be used to improve teaching in schools.
 
#24 ·
Seriously, All this "games are corrupting our children, and turning them into little Hitlers!!!"
Is one thing and one thing only: Bullsh*t. Pure Bullsh*t.
I remember watching my dad play the original Doom on our old 386 when I was a wee lad, by the time Quake came out we were comparing scores and fighting deathmatch. The truth is I've played violent games and watched violent movies for over 2/3rds of my entire life. Have I been adversly affected in this in any way shape or form? Hell no! I don't want to grab a gun and go and shoot up my school (Maybe a few people, ;) ) or family. Why? Because I'm a normal person. Only people that are deranged or otherwise unable to perceive that these games or other external sources are fictional actually take them seriously. Like neosonichdghg I too have high morals, never smoked, never done any unlawful narcotics (I must say I have had to have several legal narcotics, because of a medical condition) and also plan to remain a virgin untill I'm married. I don't plan to never drink (And admittedly I already have a little bit) but never in excess.
 
#25 ·
Vindkall said:
(Though I don't mean that games as Doom, Quake, Unreal, whatever shoot em up game is educational, but they almost always have some sort of complex problem solving. But games as SimCity, Tycoon Games, Championship Manager can be educational in the ways of economics, and there are some games that can be a good history lesson too).
That is very true. I actually learned my entire knowledge of European geography from Medieval total war. This is before I actually took Geography class, we learned pretty mcuh nothing about Geog in primary school.

Some games, especially WW2 games (which are in no short supply) are very good history lessons. Total War games- Medieval, Shogun and Rome anre also great geography lessons, and history lessons (such as what civilisations existed in this play during this time period).

I once had a game called Time commando which took you through most of the distinctive ages throughout history, and you used those weapons, and saw what the people looked like, it was awesome. To give you an idea of how old it is, you require directX 3 to run it. For those of you who aren't computer geeks, we are up to directX 9 c now. It was old.

I have learned alot of English and Maths from computer games, TV and roleplaying.

Believe it or not, Roleplaying is great for learning. It stimulates the imagination, teachs improvisation and acting, social skills, literacy and numeracy skills as well. I think roleplaying should be taught in school. Seriously.

I agree that Computer games are a vent for agression, frustration etc. so that they don't have to surface in the real world. Roleplaying helps with his too. I had a friend who was pretty mentally sound (he was a little weird) for all the time that I knew him (since third grade) and he used to play roleplaying games with me and my friends. He used to play theives and the sort, but at least he was doing it in game, and not out in the real world.

He quit roleplaying a while ago, and after that, he went a little down hill. He got in with a pretty bad crowd at school and became obsessed with the Columbine shootings. He apparently was planning something similar at our school, until he was dobbed in to Mental Health, and they raided his house, took away 6 knives he had hidden, a journal of people he wanted to kill, and guess what? All of his violent video games.

He was expelled from school for apparently making threats against the school, and I haven't seen him since. He is due in court soon, and may go to juvenile hall.

This may have occurered because he no longer had a vent for his agression, but as previously mentioned, it takes someone a little weird to do this in the first place. Not one of his video games influenced him in his mental breakdown.
 
#26 ·
Grephaun said:
research has been claimed to show that while violent computer games rarely cause serious problems in healthy families, they could have an adverse effect on children lacking social support and being left alone for many hours to basically be raised by the TV or computer
.

Is it just me, or does that remark sort of... make it obvious that computer games aren't to blame? If it only works in those families that have a ****ed up relationship and **** anyways... Well... a bit supourpluous isn't it? It is obvious that it is just a scapegoat, as has been said so many times before. In those families, I think the problem is already there, and computer games have nothing to do with whether or not the kid becomes a criminal or not.

I've played computer games for as long as I can remember, and I don't consider myself very socially inept or violent or anything... I would even go so far as to say that games like counter strike have their good sides. You learn teamwork, hand-eye co-ordination, fast thinking, and strategical thinking. You also get rid of aggressions in a very nice way. When I am mad at someone, I'll either go punch the boxing bag, or play a nice few rounds of CS...

I know no violent gamers, and I am the head of our gaming activity. We get together and play CS or Warcraft III twice a week, often even more than that, and chill out, playing violent, bloody, gory and fun games. Completely normal, sane people from all over the world, playing regularly. We should be the temple of violence if their theories were correct. We have people who lived half their life on the street. We have otherss who were raised in a safe home, but whose friends got into drugs early, and whose environment consisted of a lot of pcycological drama... We have troubled people, but no one is violent.

I think the theory is bull****, and I usually just laugh whenever it is mentioned, since it is just so ridiculously stupid.

Thanks for posting the letter to Hillary though, that was great reading Greph, and I liked many of the points being brought up here. Good on you!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top