Pavlovs Kids entertained? Violent video games monetize (virtually reward) virtual mass killings

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
The concept of scoring some 100 points for every killing or some 1000 for jumbo/mass killings in a fantasy/make believe setting, and otherwise also passively seen in many violent movies, is very commonly accepted across our youth, our society, today.

There are studies that defend extreme video game violence, by showing that video games do not necessarily desensitize the player to real-life instances of these depictions or actions.

Soo..what do you guys think is about the author of the vid's proposals? How would you answer these fundamental issues at hand:

1. Why do youth/adults choose to play extremely violent video games, for sometimes hours every day, in the first place?

2. If there were no "score" or other reward system to keep track of kill count, would the game(s) be less appealing?

3. Are violent video games physically, mentally a healthy outlet for children, teenagers, young adults, or unhealthy? How?


I agree with the guy in the vid, that video games don't necessarily "desensitize" us to mass killings.

From the various studies out there, it seems they are not numbed but rather, more susceptible to being entertained by real-life instances afterall why would they go for the extreme games and extreme scored in the first place? In other words, what is the motivation for playing violent video games such as ones focused on shooter mass-killings??

For video games is it functionally for the virtual experience (of doing extreme, often reckless things one would ordinarily be killed in the process of, or imprisoned for life or disciplined by their militant employer) and possibly the illusion of activity? Yet in fact, the player would burn more calories sleeping, than fidgeting with a joystick for hours.

Or, is there no repercussion whatsoever, of routinely occupying one's brain not with a good book or good read on ats, but rather, drawing virtual rewards through virtual mass killing in violent video games?

(Pavlov's Children - Pavlov's experiments on children showed unconscious reinforcement (reward) conditioning)

www.dailymail.co.uk...

edit on 17-12-2012 by minnow because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

1. Why do youth/adults choose to play extremely violent video games, for sometimes hours every day, in the first place?

It's fun. They enjoy it.

Why do we watch horror movies? Or violent action movies? For entertainment correct?


2. If there were no "score" or other reward system to keep track of kill count, would the game(s) be less appealing?

Would any game be fun with no means of showing your progress??

Imagine Tetris without scores or levels lol.....


3. Are violent video games physically, mentally a healthy outlet for children, teenagers, young adults, or unhealthy? How?


Better than real violence


I think it's healthy. I don't believe violent video games are a factor in these shootings any more than I think Mission Impossible encourages kids to break into the CIA.

The healthy mind is capable of separating the fantasy displayed in games and movies from reality. Perhaps it can be argued it desensitizes, but that does not lend credence to the idea it causes murderous intentions.
edit on 17-12-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   
I'm sure people who commit mass killings understand they dont get 100 points a kill or even an xbox achievement for a 20 kill streak in real life. Games may have a influence somehow but I don't think the rewards are the problem.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
thanks, fellas.

so just like any games, violent ones are fun, they enjoy it!



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
The biggest problem with your argument is that it's ultimately applicable to anything...even posting on forums like ATS about a conspiracy to promote violence in video games and other such things that get peopler riled up and....well i won't say it explicitly but i think you get the idea?

Besides...the one thing you left out and perhaps the most important aspect to any video game. STORY!

How about the simple truth that there is good and evil in often disproportionate levels in all human beings and some just get pushed to far?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by minnow
thanks, fellas.

so just like any games, violent ones are fun, they enjoy it!



It could influence the way one thinks, but to say it is the sole cause behind every shooting wouldn't be right. All I play is 1st person shooters on Xbox, but never have I thought about trying it in real life at my local cinema or childs school. I'd rather troll someone on my Xbox, at least it makes me laugh. Some people are just screwed up and we have to understand that.

The mental illness thing is even a touchy subject to me because not every mentally ill person is violent or plans on killing people. I think peoples backgrounds may play a big issue, being bullied, isolated at school, I don't know. There could be so many different reasons that picking one cerainly wont solve the problem. We could ban Shooters on our games yet next week another shooter has just massacred 10-20 people.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by minnow
The concept of scoring some 100 points for every killing or some 1000 for jumbo/mass killings in a fantasy/make believe setting, and otherwise also passively seen in many violent movies, is very commonly accepted across our youth, our society, today.

There are studies that defend extreme video game violence, by showing that video games do not necessarily desensitize the player to real-life instances of these depictions or actions.

Soo..what do you guys think is about the author of the vid's proposals? How would you answer these fundamental issues at hand:

1. Why do youth/adults choose to play extremely violent video games, for sometimes hours every day, in the first place?

2. If there were no "score" or other reward system to keep track of kill count, would the game(s) be less appealing?

3. Are violent video games physically, mentally a healthy outlet for children, teenagers, young adults, or unhealthy? How?


I agree with the guy in the vid, that video games don't necessarily "desensitize" us to mass killings.

From the various studies out there, it seems they are not numbed but rather, more susceptible to being entertained by real-life instances afterall why would they go for the extreme games and extreme scored in the first place? In other words, what is the motivation for playing violent video games such as ones focused on shooter mass-killings??

For video games is it functionally for the virtual experience (of doing extreme, often reckless things one would ordinarily be killed in the process of, or imprisoned for life or disciplined by their militant employer) and possibly the illusion of activity? Yet in fact, the player would burn more calories sleeping, than fidgeting with a joystick for hours.

Or, is there no repercussion whatsoever, of routinely occupying one's brain not with a good book or good read on ats, but rather, drawing virtual rewards through virtual mass killing in violent video games?

(Pavlov's Children - Pavlov's experiments on children showed unconscious reinforcement (reward) conditioning)

www.dailymail.co.uk...

edit on 17-12-2012 by minnow because: (no reason given)


1 - Show us sources for these 'studies' done. I have sources for studies done by American Universities which show that violence in the media and videogames do not cause aggression in minors, and that minors who play violent games and commit crimes are from less stable backgrounds and homes.

In answer to your questions:
Have you ever played any of these "extreme" violence games? Do you know any?
They are bombarded with children, minors, some as young as 8 some have claimed, but I have played with an 11 year old before. Eleven years old, playing a game with an 18+ rating. First port of call, is to not blame the child for playing, but blaming the parent for not caring what they stick their kid in front of.

Most games have a reward system these days, mainly in the form of achievements or trophies. This isn't just for violent games, but for 99% of ALL games. It's not a physical reward. It isn't redeemable in anyway.

Video games should be strictly monitored by parents of the child, discretion should be used. The ratings are on the box for a reason.
It has been said that videogames can be extremely beneficial for children and young people with dyslexia. I personally use video games as a winding down mechanism. Not just "violent games" but all kinds of games.
I would much rather use a games console to take out any feelings of stress and aggression than to turn that into a real physical assault.

I read all the time. I exercise all the time. I have a four year old son, and I don't play violent games around him, and I don't let him play violent games. He loves Sonic the Hedgehog and Super Mario Bros. He doesn't spend hours playing them, he's four years old...

Video games, and violent media is not to blame. Hundreds of millions of people play video games these days. Hundreds of millions of people listen to anti-social music. Millions of people do both. I bet less than 1% of those people are likely to even develop the urge to go on a mass killing spree.

Why violent video games? Because people like to be shocked. People like to do something in a game, and think "OMFG I can't believe I did that. I can't believe they put that in." I mean, this is coming from someone who can't play a Fable game without always actively taking the "good" path


There is a massive difference between seeing something as a portrayal of violence, and actual violence.
Reality is much more disturbing. KNOWING you're seeing a real dead person who once lived and breathed, who loved, who cried, who had a life, is much more disturbing than seeing a prone bunch of pixels that looks like a person.

ETA: Title.... Monetize? How exactly?
edit on 17-12-2012 by Lulzaroonie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
The theory of being desensitized (which I dont subscribe to) would apply to 'everything on ATS' and such

in contrast, the motivation of a reward for the most kills (points, broken records, beating all other peer players, the high of victory, etc) unconsciously conditions the mind to want to shoot/kill for that winning outcome, sense of victory, high of victory, general stimulation of adrenalin, feel-good endorphins during gory 'shock & awe'):



The more accustomed and/or simulated killing, the more conditioning of killing wired into behavioral drives: "I wanna go on a killin spree"



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Follow me here.

I am a wintertime hardcore gamer. My favorite genre is FPS and yes, I enjoy virtual headshots as much as anyone else does. I've never shot, stabbed, or taken a baseball bat to another human being. I am also an avid hunter. I've shot, field dressed, and processed pretty much everything on hooves, everything with fur, and most critters with feathers.

...but I don't play hunting games.


Why? Easy, it isn't realistic. I don't play first person shooters because I want the thrill of actually killing another human being and I don't go hunting because I want to vent frustrations with Cabellas Big Game Hunter for Xbox 360. Similarly I kinda doubt serial killers and spree killers get their rocks off playing Doom and Halo. The argument is as asinine as calling cigarettes a "gateway drug" to crystal meth. Most meth heads smoke ciggys... doesn't mean there's any major correlation between the two nor that busting open a pack of Winstons will have you slamming ice a couple weeks down the road.

I feel the same about the gun control issue. Guns don't make murderers... murderers make a gun into a weapon of murder. Simple as that. The real culprit here, as with so many other issues, is that there is a minority of the population which is crazy as hell, should be locked up, and has no business occupying the same space as those of us who are sane. The tangible threat is located between their ears, not next to their TV or leaning in a corner of their closet.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
There are many factors other than video games that may desensitize an individual towards other people or their society, as well as further factors that induce de-humanization, all of which have lead to severe violence in the past.

If you want to look at the effect of video games on severe violence, one method might be to ascertain whether the frequency of mass shootings has increased since the onset of violent video games (a date would have to be decided).

en.wikipedia.org...

That link might be useful, of the fifteen school shootings, only four occurred before 1996. You can't infer causality with just that of course, but since that contradicts the strong evidence that violence has decreased significantly through the twentieth century, it does suggest that the increase in mass shootings (in schools at least) is important.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by minnow
1. Why do youth/adults choose to play extremely violent video games, for sometimes hours every day, in the first place?


I think it's rather innate in humanity, there is somehow a thrill behind simulated violence. It almost seems like some strange adrenal stimulant.


2. If there were no "score" or other reward system to keep track of kill count, would the game(s) be less appealing?


I highly doubt many people would play them at all because there is no reward. Again, that's human nature; progression. You don't want to feel like you're pouring time into something and going nowhere or achieving nothing.


3. Are violent video games physically, mentally a healthy outlet for children, teenagers, young adults, or unhealthy? How?


I think they can be very healthy based on my responses to the prior questions. If there isn't this outlet for this innate "rush" that you get from doing these things virtually, wouldn't it be more logical to think it would happen even more in reality?

The video game would seem more appealing than performing these atrocious actions in real life for many reasons

In real life:

1. There is no real reward for performing these actions

2. There are real consequences if you get caught

3. If you die, you can't try again

4. It is a negative form of social currency rather than a positive one



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I don't see a difference in the violence in video games and that which is in books. Have you read the hunger games? Game if thrones? These are books that ae very well known and widely read and have some violence in them that wouldn't be allowed in a video game.

And the hunger games is popular among young adults.

If anything maybe books would be worse since it encourages you to imagine all the gory details in your minds eye





top topics
 
2

log in

join