ばか！バカ！　馬鹿ー月！

A long topic of debate across the board has been video game violence and the effects it has on players. Here is another story that more or less "features" such violence. What do you think about this attack? What do you think about video games and violence in general? Does the violence in video games have any effects on gamers, positive or negative, if at all? Should the video game industry do anything about video game violence? How about other interest groups or the government?

I don't think it as much as their pride and off topic conversation, as well as unneeded comments, that lead to this rather than the game itself. More as the game acts as a stimulus. My two cents BTW, the guy didn't seem all that "wrecked" about it. Also, on the restrictions, I think it's perfectly fine, just limit the time playing those games, and parents be aware of the age your son/daughters are before allowing them to play certain kind of games.

The debate over video game violence is primarily driven by critics who are not "of that world" and are demonizing those who were raised in it. While this doesn't mean they may not have valid claims, it does affect their legitimacy.

We show our principles through impractical choices: a choice which merely affirms your own group can hardly be considered principled; it is merely the instinctive choice, which I think is inappropriate for something so evolutionarily novel.

In the article, these guys sound competitive, and it escalated. They were hardly Kiritos in their composure. That two guys can come to fisticuffs over battle results is uncommon but plausible; the real surprise may be that time and space have no bearing on one's feelings.

Special note for female observers:
For the women who may find this childish, consider the last time a rumor was spread about you: no blood was spilled, no money was lost. From a guy's perspective, no "material" damage has been done. Yet it would hurt; time and space would have no bearing on your feelings. Does this make your pain any less legitimate?

To ask that question is to answer it.

This topic rears its ugly head every time there is a shooting or a massacre (especially in the United States).
Supposedly you have this gamer who is completely into (let's say) Battlefield. The game basically puts you in a setting where you can claim the lives of others for no (or minimal) consequence. Assuming that this gamer has the healthy human mind, he would know the difference between the game world and the real world. He would have the knowledge of operating a weapon, military tactics, etc. but that does not automatically make him capable of wielding his knowledge to the full extent. In the end there would always be some sort of trigger (i.e. traumatizing experience, self defense, vengeance on some unforgivable act) for violent behavior, gamer or not.

There are already scientific studies regarding this issue (http://kotaku.com/5976781/25-video-game ... summarized) with mixed results. I can only attribute it to the vast number of games, the unpredictability of player backgrounds, (possibly) flawed methodology, and the variance of human reactions (which in my case is indifference to in game violence and negative reception to IRL violence).

More or less, someone who does those kinds of crimes with only video game knowledge as their main source of information on weapons and combat is only good enough to be dangerous. I think that might be where people start freaking out.

Well, that can be one possibility why there is so much heat regarding the issue. However, studies (and my personal experience) have also shown that video games can enhance a person's decision making skills and sometimes even his crisis management skills.

I had also read somewhere that kids who play video games have better eye-motor co-ordination skills than those who don't.

I think and feel that both of you are correct about what you say. To my knowledge, most people will not dispute these things; they tend to dispute the social and psychological aspects though. The question of how much harm someone does by being into a hobby that tends towards solitude seems to both many, given that critics tend to label them as "hermits," "unsociable," "social misfits," etc. I feel that it is fair game to ask the reverse question: "Are these critics calling for such people to be responsible, society-contributing, social individuals with a true concern for their well being; or, are they just pushing their values onto such people as a reflection of their own sense of insecurity and lack of well-being?"