Hey guys, apologies for my absence of late. Today I was reading a few articles on oxm.com when this particular article caught my eye: http://www.oxm.co.uk/49769/ea-boss-videogames-dont-cause-violence-but-we-have-to-solve-the-perception-issue/ In the article they reiterate the many common arguments about why video games don't cause violence, as well as touching upon why is the violence localized in the US? considering that video games are a world wide phenomenon, and some countries - such as Japan - consume more video games than the United States, yet there is far less violence there. Anyway guys just wanted to shine some light on this article, I'm hoping to be doing some more articles/reviews soon, as always guys if anyone has any ideas or comments feel free to leave them below.
This is Vampiric Gamer signing off.
Thursday, 31 January 2013
Friday, 18 January 2013
Video Games: Do they promote violence?
This is a debate that has been going on for some time now, 'Do Video Games Promote Violence?' in this blog post I'll be laying down my thoughts and opinions on this subject, and as a prior warning, this blog may deal with content and subjects which may upset some readers, so reader discretion is advised . As with any debate there are always several arguments and opinions, so do feel free to leave your own in the comments, just be sure to keep it on topic and remember that everyone is entitled to their opinions so try to keep the comments friendly.
Back to the topic at hand, in the past violent films such as 'Natural Born Killers' and 'Taxi Driver,' have been accused of promoting and encouraging violence. I am aware that there have been cases of 'copy cat killings' taken from the films, but can we place the blame entirely on these films as the sole cause for those murders? As we delve into the 21st Century, Video Games have become the latest scapegoat for the causes of violent crimes. With the tragic events that took place in Connecticut, last December (2012), Video Games and violence has yet again been put in the spot light. The argument put forward was that by playing the games Call of Duty and Mass Effect, the gunman was inspired by the violence in these games to go out and commit such a horrible crime. The media had a field day on this fact and were saying without the existence of violent video games, none of this would ever have happened. This argument is ridiculous of course, since even before video games and movies, violent crimes were being committed. Take for example Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel Murders.
In 1888, six women were killed and mutilated within the Whitechapel district of East London (there have been theories that the actual number may be far greater, however the general consensus is that the mystery man Jack the Ripper was only accountable for these six). Back to the topic of Video Games causing violence, and how Jack the Ripper is related to my point, in 1888 they didn't have Video Games or Movies, they had newspapers and theater, yet there was still a man who could commit such horrific crimes and never get caught. The newspapers of the time would have been reporting on other acts of violence such as the latter end of the Zulu civil wars, and theaters would be putting on plays and musicals which incorporated violence, but are either of these mediums scrutinized today? The simple answer is no, because it seems ridiculous to blame a play at the theater for inspiring the Ripper murders. As for newspapers, and the daily flow of violent acts that are reported on nowadays, they never seem to be blamed because there is other media for them to scapegoat, surely the newspapers should take some of the blame if it's ok for video games and movies to be blamed for violence?
Reading an article by Kotaku (http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/01/75-of-parents-think-violent-video-games-contribute-to-actual-violence/) earlier today, shows that possibly due to media spreading the fear that video games are the devil and by playing them your children are slowly being corrupted. However most of these violent video games are rated at 18, so for kids to get hold of them it would require their parents or older family members to purchase it for them. This is where parents would claim ignorance to not knowing how violent the game was but in the case of Call of Duty, the lobbies of which are usually always flooded with kids, it is the parents fault for them playing it. The box art usually depicts a man carrying a gun, on the back it describes the game as involving warfare, and finally the big ratings companies rate the game at 18, all pointing to the fact that this game deals with adult subjects. Therefore instead of blaming the game for promoting violence to children is it not the parents who should be held accountable for it? Even if the child got a hold of it some other way the likely hood is they'll be playing the game in their parents house, so it is up to the parents to prevent them from playing games they deem too violent. If you were to buy your child an adult movie from the local adult shop, you'd be classed as an irresponsible parent, and would be entirely to blame for that, as unlikely as that situation is, the point still stands, adult movies are rated 18 as are most violent games, parents should be held accountable to what they expose their children to rather than seek to place the blame on someone else.
In the spirit of trying to keep this post a reasonable length, there is just a few more points I would like to touch on. This first thing is related to the last paragraph on parent responsibility and ratings systems. In the United States of America, President Obama outlined a $10 million study into the violent media (which includes Video games). On top of this US congress has outlined a violent video game legislation entitled the 'Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act.' It is described fully here: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/17/violent-games-legislation-introduced-to-us-congress, but is basically making the ESRB rating system part of the law similar to it being illegal for a shop in the UK to sell a game to someone under the age of the rating. We must also take into account the mental state of the person committing the crime, since a lot of the time these people are mentally unstable and don't think the same as the average citizen. Going back to the subject of Connecticut, the US gun laws and the ease of access he had to the weapons he used can be blamed, since without the tools of the crime, he may never have been able to commit the crime. On a final note, Kotaku says that 'there is absolutely zero evidence, according to leading researchers in this field, that links violent video games to violent crime in any way.'
In 1888, six women were killed and mutilated within the Whitechapel district of East London (there have been theories that the actual number may be far greater, however the general consensus is that the mystery man Jack the Ripper was only accountable for these six). Back to the topic of Video Games causing violence, and how Jack the Ripper is related to my point, in 1888 they didn't have Video Games or Movies, they had newspapers and theater, yet there was still a man who could commit such horrific crimes and never get caught. The newspapers of the time would have been reporting on other acts of violence such as the latter end of the Zulu civil wars, and theaters would be putting on plays and musicals which incorporated violence, but are either of these mediums scrutinized today? The simple answer is no, because it seems ridiculous to blame a play at the theater for inspiring the Ripper murders. As for newspapers, and the daily flow of violent acts that are reported on nowadays, they never seem to be blamed because there is other media for them to scapegoat, surely the newspapers should take some of the blame if it's ok for video games and movies to be blamed for violence?
Reading an article by Kotaku (http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/01/75-of-parents-think-violent-video-games-contribute-to-actual-violence/) earlier today, shows that possibly due to media spreading the fear that video games are the devil and by playing them your children are slowly being corrupted. However most of these violent video games are rated at 18, so for kids to get hold of them it would require their parents or older family members to purchase it for them. This is where parents would claim ignorance to not knowing how violent the game was but in the case of Call of Duty, the lobbies of which are usually always flooded with kids, it is the parents fault for them playing it. The box art usually depicts a man carrying a gun, on the back it describes the game as involving warfare, and finally the big ratings companies rate the game at 18, all pointing to the fact that this game deals with adult subjects. Therefore instead of blaming the game for promoting violence to children is it not the parents who should be held accountable for it? Even if the child got a hold of it some other way the likely hood is they'll be playing the game in their parents house, so it is up to the parents to prevent them from playing games they deem too violent. If you were to buy your child an adult movie from the local adult shop, you'd be classed as an irresponsible parent, and would be entirely to blame for that, as unlikely as that situation is, the point still stands, adult movies are rated 18 as are most violent games, parents should be held accountable to what they expose their children to rather than seek to place the blame on someone else.
In the spirit of trying to keep this post a reasonable length, there is just a few more points I would like to touch on. This first thing is related to the last paragraph on parent responsibility and ratings systems. In the United States of America, President Obama outlined a $10 million study into the violent media (which includes Video games). On top of this US congress has outlined a violent video game legislation entitled the 'Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act.' It is described fully here: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/17/violent-games-legislation-introduced-to-us-congress, but is basically making the ESRB rating system part of the law similar to it being illegal for a shop in the UK to sell a game to someone under the age of the rating. We must also take into account the mental state of the person committing the crime, since a lot of the time these people are mentally unstable and don't think the same as the average citizen. Going back to the subject of Connecticut, the US gun laws and the ease of access he had to the weapons he used can be blamed, since without the tools of the crime, he may never have been able to commit the crime. On a final note, Kotaku says that 'there is absolutely zero evidence, according to leading researchers in this field, that links violent video games to violent crime in any way.'
Wednesday, 16 January 2013
What This Blog Is About
Hey guys, after my initial post of a review for the newest addition to the Call of Duty franchise, which I feel I could have taken some more time over, I've decided to keep this post simple and explain a bit about this here blog. The way I see it, is a way to get my thoughts and opinions out of my mind and written down. I have long had string views and opinions on video games, films, music and the like. The blog comes into this as a way for me to compile all of these thoughts into one article. In this blog I will mainly concentrate my posts about the subject of gaming, including my thoughts on the latest 'big' gaming news, debates and of course reviews, along with some other gaming tidbits here and there. However now and then I may feel the need to comment on the latest films, music and other subjects that make an impression on me.
So why the name Vampiric Gamer? Well I suppose the answer is quite simple really. The obvious part is that I am in fact an active gamer of varying levels of commitment on the Xbox 360 and PC, more so the 360 side of things. As for the Vampiric part, just to clarify it's not because I drink blood, can turn into a bat or fear sunlight (which might I add DOES NOT make a Vampire sparkle) it's more to do with the fact that during the past few years I have become nocturnal, in the sense that ok yes I do go out during the day and all, but when the sunsets I am unable to sleep till the early hours of the morning, often 3.00 or 4.00 am. When it came to deciding a name for the blog, well nocturnal gamer didn't quite have the right ring to it, so I settled for Vampiric Gamer, since Vampires are nocturnal creatures, and I am a fan of the more tradition Vampires that have been around since before Twilight.
Some of you may be wondering why Black Ops 2? well the idea to do a review came about from discussing the game with friends, and looking at other reviews online in which many reviewers seemed to have missed the point that for the first time since Call of Duty 4, the series has seen a major overall. Many reviewers still seemed stuck on the Modern Warfare 3 game, which to me felt mediocre at best, the campaign didn't seem to have had much thought behind it, but I'll stop myself there for so that this post doesn't become a review.
On a final note, I am looking to start posting a bit more frequently, if I can find the necessary free time that is, if there is anything you would like me to talk about/comment on feel free to leave a comment with suggestions and general feedback. Hope this has helped you see what to expect from the future, any questions put them in the comments and if i get enough I'll do a Q&A blog post :)
So why the name Vampiric Gamer? Well I suppose the answer is quite simple really. The obvious part is that I am in fact an active gamer of varying levels of commitment on the Xbox 360 and PC, more so the 360 side of things. As for the Vampiric part, just to clarify it's not because I drink blood, can turn into a bat or fear sunlight (which might I add DOES NOT make a Vampire sparkle) it's more to do with the fact that during the past few years I have become nocturnal, in the sense that ok yes I do go out during the day and all, but when the sunsets I am unable to sleep till the early hours of the morning, often 3.00 or 4.00 am. When it came to deciding a name for the blog, well nocturnal gamer didn't quite have the right ring to it, so I settled for Vampiric Gamer, since Vampires are nocturnal creatures, and I am a fan of the more tradition Vampires that have been around since before Twilight.
Some of you may be wondering why Black Ops 2? well the idea to do a review came about from discussing the game with friends, and looking at other reviews online in which many reviewers seemed to have missed the point that for the first time since Call of Duty 4, the series has seen a major overall. Many reviewers still seemed stuck on the Modern Warfare 3 game, which to me felt mediocre at best, the campaign didn't seem to have had much thought behind it, but I'll stop myself there for so that this post doesn't become a review.
On a final note, I am looking to start posting a bit more frequently, if I can find the necessary free time that is, if there is anything you would like me to talk about/comment on feel free to leave a comment with suggestions and general feedback. Hope this has helped you see what to expect from the future, any questions put them in the comments and if i get enough I'll do a Q&A blog post :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
