X
Live Weeknights at 7PM ET
Welcome to TV's only source for all the stuff you care about from the coolest viral videos to the hottest new gadgets, comics and movies. Attack of the Show gets it before it gets out.

Jack Thompson vs Adam Sessler

dvinson
Posted August 10, 2006 - By Dana Leahy

Holy Crap was this a good Loop. Watch the video below to see G4's own Adam Sessler debate with Jack Thompson, the anti-videogame lawyer about violence in videogames. Seriously, this is mind blowing.

 

The Loop: Too Much Video Game Violence? »


Tags: The Loop

Comments are Closed

  • NiceGurl_14

    The first time I watched this, I was really exited that someone was finally representing gamers (which people tend to overlook most of the time) I even wrote a LONG post on kotaku.com about Jack Thompson and how he really needs to stop scapegoating.

    Posted: August 10, 2008 5:38 PM
    NiceGurl_14
  • Gryphe

    You know, when I first saw this video, all I could think was 'Finally, somebody is putting that bugger in his place!'

    But now... now I feel pity. Adam still rocks for putting him in his place, but now I almost feel sorry for poor ol' Jackie-boy. You see, he's got way too much time on his hands to do 'research' (filming his 10-year old son buy GTA to prove a point), not to mention so many issues with life and society in general. Well, not all society. Just gays, muslims, video games and all things that aren't revolving around his head.

    Come on guys, it's not fair to pick on the guy when, mentally and morally, he doesn't know any better... Oh, and I hope his son enjoyed his game.

    Posted: July 8, 2008 12:43 PM
    Gryphe
  • Kais86

    Jack Thompson is one of the people I consider to be the worst of the non-criminals he failed to see the responsibilities of parents which is probably the majority of what is wrong with todays' society. These accusations are so outrageous and prove a level of ignorance that belies Jack's position. Were the gaming community a god Adam would be its' avatar, keep up the good work Adam.

    Posted: May 6, 2008 1:09 AM
    Kais86
  • XeroFuzion

    Mr Jack Thompson. You are a lawyer. Where is your EVIDENCE that you keep claiming exists regarding the causal link between the interaction with violent video games and real world violence? I think everyone here would be real interested to read about the research you claim that has proven this. I'm also pretty confident there are millions of gamers here who would LOVE to participate in a future study that would completely disprove the information that you currently have regarding acting out real world violence because of a video game is completely false. These claims are as ridiculous as Heavy Metal music played backwards and Dungeons and Dragons causing people to do harm to others and themselves.

    Posted: May 5, 2008 5:48 AM
    XeroFuzion
  • Guppy0

    I thankfull that this came out. This is a topic that greatly intrested me. Only if they could go on for more. Note: make them come togethier again please. Adam won that in my eyes for far so hip,hip hurry to Adam. Would love if this topic came up more often. That's beacuse I love to talk it out with people on issues like this. The should have a virtual aduance on this topic when 2-10 people can debate this topic. I thing games are not even a factor. I blame the media all they show is violence were do you think most people see this activity. So again Adam thanks for all you have done today. Know what love to talk anyone on this website who would like to chat about this topic with me.

    Posted: May 1, 2008 9:13 PM
    Guppy0
  • XPlay333

    mark and adam were awesome

    Posted: March 2, 2008 2:30 PM
    XPlay333
  • jevon2008

    Yeah I just was about to say you took that from another page I posted it on. Thanks for correcting yourself, see you after school. LOL pwned n00b

    Posted: January 23, 2008 10:38 AM
    jevon2008
  • DarkDestiny20222

    forgot to put 'from Jevon2008' Sorry!

    Posted: January 23, 2008 10:35 AM
    DarkDestiny20222
  • DarkDestiny20222

    it's people that believe videogames are harmful that will destroy us. They are the ones who don't understand how what they do effect their kids rather the fact that videogames put you in another world to where you can do anything you want without getting in trouble. My little 4 year old friend says, "Games are fun!!!![Laughing]", I asked him if they show him to do bad things. He replied, "No but if mom and dad do then I guess it's ok."
    This guy has the right idea!

    Posted: January 23, 2008 10:34 AM
    DarkDestiny20222
  • DarkDestiny20222

    Jack is an idiot. He deserves a kick in the head. ADAM KNOWS US! If Jack wants a fight, We will unleash Morgen Webb.

    Posted: January 16, 2008 12:14 PM
    DarkDestiny20222
  • EvilHeadPokey

    Jack Thompson should mind his own buisiness, he shouldn't care. He can make his own kid have no fun, but he's going to extremes trying to get it banned. He was making up that BS and not telling the whole story.

    Posted: November 18, 2007 1:57 PM
    EvilHeadPokey
  • MetroidJunkie

    Adam may be an idiot sometimes in X-Play but, really, he kicked Jack Thompson's ass in logics. JT really got owned here.

    Posted: November 13, 2007 3:25 AM
    MetroidJunkie
  • deviousspartan

    You can tell from the very beginning that Jack Thompson is pulling facts out of his ass, and Adam Sessler totally calls him out on everything and he avoids his QUESTIONS. and I agree with the middle guy it is up to the parents to decide what the content of their kids entertainment is. Kudos to Adam Sessler for representing the Gaming Industry in a positive manner and kicking Jack Thompson's ass all the way to over protective-soccer mom hell.

    Posted: October 26, 2007 8:20 PM
    deviousspartan
  • Ake

    Thompson saying that the APA has claimed there is a direct causal link is a straight-up lie. Any respected academics will NEVER suggest a direct causal link between any two things, only a correlation between those two things (big difference). That is simply the way of science. The APA never forwarded that there was a direct causal link, they simply said that video games seem to have the same effect that television has. It's silly that uber-conservatives use this as a scapegoat when other political policy (such as gun control, more funding for after school programs and geeky extra-curriculars like computer programming) could be a lot more helpful in circumventing youth violence.

    Kevin did a good job of moderating this debate, because it could have easily got off topic and sidetracked to petty details that didn't have anything to do with the discussion its self. I love Adam, but perhaps he's not the qualified expert you want debating the other side.

    Posted: October 12, 2007 10:53 PM
    Ake
  • cmg61904

    Thompson is so closed minded about all of this. If the individual person playing a violent game already has violent tendencies, then they are more likely to do violent things, but if someone has very little tendency toward violence, then it is unlikely that they will be affected by violent games.

    p.s. Does anyone else find it amusing that this topic has over 570 posts?

    p.p.s- Thompson's an idiot!

    Posted: September 18, 2007 12:53 PM
    cmg61904
  • viper565

    Lol, and the end he's like KEVIN! KEVIN!

    Posted: September 17, 2007 8:33 PM
    viper565
  • disasterchief117

    Jack Thompson is just another pissed off, media-blaming, parent who happens to get more attention that he deserves due to the fact that he is a lawyer(and a very poor one at that). Games are just catching so much crap these days. First Gta is violent, Bully is a viral outbreak that will rip our children's moral fabric in two, and to top all that off RE5 is racist. What's next? Nazi activists bitching about the host of WWII games that on the market? Lets hope not. Heres to hoping that one day our beloved games are left in peace.

    Posted: August 23, 2007 5:21 PM
    disasterchief117
  • disasterchief117

    Adam Sessler has now become my hero for proving Jack Thompson's BS wrong (not that it's a difficult task but, he did get to do it on national television). Videogames (especially Doom) can't train someone to commit a violent act.

    Posted: August 13, 2007 12:53 AM
    disasterchief117
  • Arranmc182

    The more games they start to ban and the less games that start gatting made will meem there will be more kids on the streets braking the law

    Posted: July 10, 2007 8:06 AM
    Arranmc182
  • the_real_deal

    In case jack @ss man needs an update school violence in school is down in the last 15 years SESSLER SESSLER Adam sessler get an easy win a TKO win in the 10th round Adam should be our videogame spoksman and thompsans license got suspened YEAH because hes Mental

    Posted: July 7, 2007 1:56 AM
    the_real_deal
  • Buddy_Holley

    " the video game industry and the media continue to ignore it"

    WHATEVER. The media blames EVERYTHING on video games. Why did Cho Seung Hui shoot all those innocent people? MUSTA BEEN VIDEO GAMES.

    {As a side note, his roommate said that he never played video games....or watched crazy movies.}


    Jack Thompson is a complete idiot who just wants a scapegoat for his kids' actions like the rest of the parents in America. And Adam Sessler....well, I love Adam Sessler and I just wish he would have been able to actually say what he wanted to instead of getting interrupted and cut off.


    UGH. Let me have a debate with this guy. I WILL DO IT! :[

    Posted: May 9, 2007 8:11 AM
    Buddy_Holley
  • wii_want_it

    I'm really starting to hate that guy...I remember that complaint he made to make Midway stop selling Armageddon just because you could make a Thompson look-like in the create a character mode...What an ass this guy is.

    Posted: April 9, 2007 5:12 PM
    wii_want_it
  • shion_jr_kosmos

    You don't interrupt the Sess, the Sess interrupts you. Unless you're Morgan Webb.

    Posted: April 6, 2007 3:30 PM
    shion_jr_kosmos
  • ColonelSmith

    haha you can tell hes just looking for attention "I'm a parent too!"

    Posted: March 8, 2007 5:36 PM
    ColonelSmith
  • Sonic512

    Jack Thompson causes violence

    Posted: February 27, 2007 9:11 PM
    Sonic512
  • mmmsandwich

    Adam, I speak for all of us when I say, Thank you for your courage taking on that blithering idiot. You are owed a debt of gratitude.

    Not even all of the lawyers combined in the USA could take on the first amendment.

    Posted: January 19, 2007 3:09 AM
    mmmsandwich
  • FireKittie

    You know what I don't get? Jack Thompson attacking The Sims 2 for nudity.. Sure the censor patch can be removed.. But the sims are barbies underneath it.. Anywho.. HURRAY ADAM!!! Somebody needed to stand up for us. This whole thing is just ridiculous.. On how many accounts do you actually hear about violence being related to video games, compared to how many kids actually play video games? Not many. I can tell you that. I've seen places like GameStop, EB, etc. filled with a bunch of kids, including around my age (19), buying violent video game.. You know how many I've seen or heard of on the news about killing people, or hurting others badly? ..None. It's such a rare case to actually hear about it. I don't get what his problem is.. Jack Thompson's ideas make no sense in the end if you really pay attention. I wish I could have been there to make my own point.. But anyways..

    VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES DO NOT PRODUCE VIOLENT CHILDREN. I think I've made my point.

    Posted: December 21, 2006 9:16 AM
    FireKittie
  • insomniac413

    right on Spoony bird, Jack's just trying to make a name for himself like all those other asshole hot coffe lawyers.

    Posted: November 28, 2006 3:34 PM
    insomniac413
  • SpoonyBard

    Look if your stupid you act out things that you see on the teley... (Like the people from Jackass or... Tryed to do what they did.) Most of the people in school shootings serial killings etc. Were insane or driven to insanity by other people.For example Columbine was pure because of bullying and pychological disorders (Supriority complex and disconnection from reality) not because of Doom. Look at Jack the Ripper (Or who ever he was) They didn't even have video games or infact any violent media. Ted Bundy was inspired by violent porngraghy.

    Posted: November 24, 2006 12:34 PM
    SpoonyBard
  • arrestedattention

    jack thomson must die.

    Posted: October 21, 2006 5:54 PM
    arrestedattention
  • EMO_MUST_DIE

    i dont know if anyone actually reads this thread anymore, but i have to say,i had no idea Adam is that smart. on x-play, they make him look like an idiot, but this dude freaking rules.

    Posted: October 18, 2006 12:57 PM
    EMO_MUST_DIE
  • Idietired

    This is my first post, and I know the thread is loosing steam by now, but here goes ...

    Bully was released today nationwide, and after having used this thread to research something I was working on, and having read one comment after another about Thompson and how hated he is by our community of gamers, something dawned on me:

    How ironic is it that Rockstar produced a game with this specific title?

    Thompson says roughly 3/4 of the way through the clip that "the solution ... is to give 'me' the game." He is automatically assuming that his opinion trumps that of anyone else.

    Then there's the fact that he spends however many millions of taxpayers' dollars on utilizing the legal system to fight these rediculous law suits of his.

    The irony, for all intents and purposes, is that Thompson is nothing short of a bully himself, and the children of this playground will not stand for it.

    Posted: October 18, 2006 2:23 AM
    Idietired
  • Boomachucka

    Wow.

    Jack Thompson got owned.
    Fool.

    Posted: October 15, 2006 5:59 PM
    Boomachucka
  • wedgiey1

    This thread seems to be dying, but I couldn't resist adding a post.
    Basically this all comes down to the Bobo Doll experiment by Bandura back in 1963 - Read it. Also, society looks for scape goats for every generation (Monster Movies, Comics, Rock & Roll, D&D, and now Video Games). Also, research will find that the youth is actually not more violent now than ever - violent youth crimes are at an all-time low. Strange, huh? Also, violent games have been proven to desensetize people, but not make them any more prone to violence than watching someone hit a bobo doll in the face.

    Posted: October 13, 2006 1:24 PM
    wedgiey1
  • wedgiey1

    This thread seems to be dying, but I couldn't resist adding a post.
    Basically this all comes down to the Bobo Doll experiment by Bandura back in 1963 - Read it. Also, society looks for scape goats for every generation (Monster Movies, Comics, Rock & Roll, D&D, and now Video Games). Also, research will find that the youth is actually not more violent now than ever - violent youth crimes are at an all-time low. Strange, huh? Also, violent games have been proven to desensetize people, but not make them any more prone to violence than watching someone hit a bobo doll in the face.

    Posted: October 13, 2006 1:22 PM
    wedgiey1
  • Itachi12

    It's so ironic, in the robot episode of x-play adam taught the robot adam VI how to kill.

    Posted: September 30, 2006 8:55 AM
    Itachi12
  • Milk_n_Cheese

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2 005/08/15/video_games_and_aggr ession/

    Says here that videogames DON'T cause aggression. There are plenty of other articles out there too. Use the internet and learn new things...but do watch out, you could stumble upon something violent while surfing the web. We wouldn't want to sue Al Gore for making the Internet and then get rid of the Internet. *snickers*

    Posted: September 18, 2006 4:09 AM
    Milk_n_Cheese
  • Milk_n_Cheese

    In the end though, people like Jack Thompson shouldn't punish people for something they never intend to do, just because a VERY small few commits a crime. Here's an example. It's like saying someone who was drunk at a bar from drinking waaaay too much went to prison for killing a man that accidentally pushed him on the way out. Then saying to the community who enjoys a drink at the bar that all bars will be closed now, due to alcohol. See, we have police for that...just like we have parents to keep us in check with videogames. No, no…even better; our own MORALS to keep us in check.

    Posted: September 18, 2006 4:00 AM
    Milk_n_Cheese
  • Milk_n_Cheese

    You know what DOOM taught me? It taught me that you could get paid to create these imaginative and artistic creations in a new medium. It taught me that I could get a job out of this, that I can actually have a career laid out before me. Does that sound violent to you? No, course not. There will always be some crazy guy/girl/kid/adult out in this world that seriously has a social disorder of some kind, which will use entertainment mediums as an excuse to get less punishment after he/she’s caught performing a serious crime. Isn't that freaking obvious!? Dubalos7, please know this. I appreciate the studies and all, but like the others said...Jack Thompson had it coming to him when he waged war on the gaming community and people in general. His statements are not thought out and conflict with other research studies performed that say the opposite. Did you know that other studies say that they DON'T increase violence? Who are we to believe then? Who cares!

    Posted: September 18, 2006 3:58 AM
    Milk_n_Cheese
  • Milk_n_Cheese

    Okay, I've written plenty of papers on this in college and I've been dying to let loose on the matter for a while now. All the points that I've read so far seem sound, yet there is one thing that just completely bothers me. It's the media allowing this Jack Thompson character to even be in the news. You see, the world today is much SMALLER because of T.V. and the internet. People see more violence and want to blame it on something more and more. The truth is, our world has always been violent. Now that we can easily read up on matters and see these people who seriously lack any amount of intelligence on T.V., we need a reason. So it's games, but what about the media showing death everywhere and war. What about the Internet being used to easily find EXTREME violence? You can find a Vietnamese woman crushing a kitten with high heels ACCIDENTALLY surfing the internet, and you want to blame GAMES!? WTF is wrong with this world. Let it be is what I say.

    Posted: September 18, 2006 3:56 AM
    Milk_n_Cheese
  • Deniki

    "there needs to be an emphasis on school counselors nationwide to make large public announcements to their students not to be afraid of speaking to them about any issues whatsoever if there is in fact a risk for another Columbine incident to happen (given video games were the cause of their actions)." - ToAzwethinkweizm
    I agree with everything you said above EXCEPT THIS! Do NOT blame video games on crazy, lonely. emo white kids. Just because they likened the experience of murdering their schoolmates to playing DOOM doesnt mean DOOM made them do it. Means they are fakin addled in the brain.

    Posted: September 16, 2006 6:53 PM
    Deniki
  • Nitemare292

    Since I have too many points for AOTB Comments, I'm going to post this on gaia then link it.

    http://www.gaiaonline.com/fo rum/posting.php

    Posted: September 12, 2006 7:23 PM
    Nitemare292
  • ToniHansom123

    Adam Sessler is the shit he can tell that you can play can that are extremley violent.

    Posted: September 12, 2006 6:00 AM
    ToniHansom123
  • ToAzwethinkweizm

    Kudos to all parents out there who both place certain limits on children but also teach them right from wrong. I completely forgot to include this, but if it isn’t the parents, in which Dubalo7 mentioned is “just a piece of the puzzle,” then there needs to be an emphasis on school counselors nationwide to make large public announcements to their students not to be afraid of speaking to them about any issues whatsoever if there is in fact a risk for another Columbine incident to happen (given video games were the cause of their actions).

    Posted: September 5, 2006 11:40 AM
    ToAzwethinkweizm
  • ToAzwethinkweizm

    Kudos to all parents out there who both place certain limits on children but also teach them right from wrong. I completely forgot to include this, but if it isn’t the parents, in which Dubalo7 mentioned is “just a piece of the puzzle,” then there needs to be an emphasis on school counselors nationwide to make large public announcements to their students not to be afraid of speaking to them about any issues whatsoever if there is in fact a risk for another Columbine incident to happen (given video games were the cause of their actions).

    Posted: September 5, 2006 11:35 AM
    ToAzwethinkweizm
  • ToAzwethinkweizm

    Most kids and adults (or should I say people in general) know that it is ridiculous to mimic a video game, and the best you can do is turn to the methods in which parents raise children. What it all comes down to are the parents. Games will not be banned or limited anytime soon, and if they are, I’d compare it to another period of prohibition in terms of how the nation will react. Was it illegal that my dad allowed me to RESPONSIBLY drink beer beginning at the age of 19 whenever I was home from college? When it all comes down to it, you bet it’s illegal, but I remained in my home, away from a car, and enjoyed the company of my family, as they knew I was a responsible young man, and I proved that to them as I do this day as a 21 year old adult. I don’t know if it is illegal for a child to play a game in which the video game stores (who follow ESRB) do not permit the purchase of that certain game, but the parents are the ones that are responsible for monitoring such a thing.

    Posted: September 5, 2006 11:32 AM
    ToAzwethinkweizm
  • ToAzwethinkweizm

    I have debated this with friends and come to the conclusion that we all get mad or discouraged and a little more aggressive from video games, but we have logic and parents that raised us correctly. Sometimes I’ll yell at my TV or computer if I lose or do terribly at Pong or Tetris or Katamari Damacy, so please correct me if I’m wrong, but in my book, that is aggression. However, I not only have self-control, but I also have a brain to know what is right and wrong. My aggression is simply dissipated by understanding that “it is JUST a video game,” and immediately thinking about how much fun I had. Why am I like this? My parents where the first people to place this influence upon me just like all adults who may become parents one day.

    Posted: September 5, 2006 11:31 AM
    ToAzwethinkweizm
  • ToAzwethinkweizm

    My parents never stopped talking to me about that stuff. I am 21 now, and was exposed to violent games such as Doom as a child, and my parents thought it was absurd for me to play such games, but constantly gave me the lectures, being the responsible parents they were, and eventually realized that I was unaffected by the violence in front of my eyes. I have played and been exposed to all sorts of violent games (such as the current RE4, God of War), and find them to be entertaining, and “cool.” Mind you I am NOT a psychologist, but I play non-violent games just as much as violent games, and personally sense an increase in aggression in either genre depending on how hard and/or frustrating the game is.

    Posted: September 5, 2006 11:30 AM
    ToAzwethinkweizm
  • ToAzwethinkweizm

    The video game industry has the ESRB, for the least they can do is place a limit on age when it comes to buying video games, so you know they are making an effort to limiting their games by age based on content. They simply cannot stop selling games for what most people use them for: their entertainment value. Then there are the parents. Kids are technically considered adults at age 18 (even though I understand that the ESRB’s Mature rating is for 17+), and for example: will be charged as adults if committing a crime. Roughly until that age, ALL PARENTS are responsible for raising their kids, and working to make them understand the difference between right and wrong. In terms of video games, they can simply do this by not buying them a game that isn’t suitable for their age, OR if they buy a game they can keep an open flow of communication with their child (as my parents did) and give them the lectures on sex, violence, drugs, etc.

    Posted: September 5, 2006 11:28 AM
    ToAzwethinkweizm
  • mlk

    @Dubalo7 you might have already answered this, but what were the two games used in your study?

    Posted: September 4, 2006 5:15 AM
    mlk
  • Deniki

    I dont even LIKE games like GTA, I get bored after half an hour of running over hookers but the POINT is that game companies should be able to make w.e they want withing reason and as long as people fakin FOLLOW the rules then there wont be a goddam problem.
    On another note I dont think an extended debate with Jack would be a good idea, the man is trained to argue his point across and sound like hes the more "sane" of the debators.
    "Arguing with him is a waste of time. Jack or someone like him will always be there beating their chest and begging for air time. You’ll never change his mind. What you can change is the validity of his arguments and we don’t do that during a televised debate. We do it through our actions as a community." Gabe from Penny-arcade

    Posted: September 3, 2006 1:14 AM
    Deniki
  • Deniki

    Hate Jack Thompson, hope his nuts turn to dust and blow away in the wind. Love Adam as much as it is possible to love someone u dont personally know.
    Jack is an unmitigated ass, whatever happened to just plain CRAZY?!? Yes yes video games must be the answer, crackheaded parents and shitty schools have nothing to do with the state of these kids minds... I was in EB last year and this faking strung out, over painted whore of a mother and her bratty spawn were arguing. Or rather the lil assmonger was dictating to his mother to fakin buy him (insert random M rated game here) and she was doing it! The rating system is in place for a faking reason, THE LITTLE SHIT AINT SUPPOSED TO BE PLAYING IT! Parents like HER are part of the problem and if they dont fakin listen to the ESRB then WE are gonna have to pay! The fakin government will step in with over religious, bigoty zealots like Jack Thompson leading the way; and take away our freedom of expression.

    Posted: September 3, 2006 1:12 AM
    Deniki
  • the_X_monkey

    ADAM SESSLER IS MY NEW GOD he literally kicked jack's a$$ using only words

    Posted: August 31, 2006 8:12 PM
    the_X_monkey
  • the_X_monkey

    adam wow you are a very smart man and i am 100% on your side this was a great disgution and that jack son of a b*tch should go to hell anyone can see that he is just using this to make money adam is probably the smartest guy on the loop i've seen in a awhile and who said oh a videogame did this NO! a video game did not do this there was violence like this even before video games exsisted hell there was worst violence before video games exsisted that jack is one dumb son of a b*tch and adam you are freakin awsome and that other guy was cool but i forget his name but i give them credit

    Posted: August 31, 2006 8:03 PM
    the_X_monkey
  • noname989

    The kid in Paducah trained by Doom? Hunting and shooting are a common hobbies in Kentucky and Tennesee. Most kids in these areas grow up with firearms their whole lives.

    Men like Thompson don't debate they shout yell and scream to get their points across. Adam just outperformed him (it helps that Adam isnt a rookie in showbiz like ol Jack). TV with its limited time slots and ADD style isnt very condusive to real debates though.

    Posted: August 29, 2006 10:59 PM
    noname989
  • noname989

    I'm sorry Diablo7 but I disagree with you on these studies. Studies are not indisputable nor are they "proof" of anything. I bet you could do the same study on sports and get the same results. Probably any competitive activity will cause a rise in aggression and aggressive behavior. I also find your logic flawed "A causes a rise in B which may lead to C. Therefore A causes C!" too bad thats a logical fallacy (Correlation implies causation). The only thing these studies show is that Games cause a rise in aggression...thats it... The other stuff (sex,drinking,drugs..Rock n Roll) is horseshat.

    Posted: August 29, 2006 10:34 PM
    noname989
  • DR_and_GZ

    I dunno. I don't think Adam so much helped the cause as much as he showed a sign of desperation. I mean, all in all I agree with Adam totally and I think it's agreed that Jack Thompson is a pompous a-hole who's pushing a cause for his own egotistical purposes, but I think Adam came off a little too...emblazened I think. As though he was trying to overcompensated. Thompson presented himself rather calmly and he pointed out a few good points. That guy in the middle (damn I can't remember his name) I think did more for the arguement than Adam did, because he, too, debatedly confidently and calmly about the idea.

    But kudos to Adam. At least he wasn't afraid to deliver the proverbial bitch slap to Thompson's face.

    Posted: August 28, 2006 4:27 PM
    DR_and_GZ
  • RobGrizzlie

    Great Loop! I love violent games. But the "enemy" has a point. Little kids are the ones that will become violent, not us. And parents can't seem to keep these games out of their hands. So developers do have to be careful of what content they have. The last thing we need is for the game to already be out, because by then it'll be too late. Adam Sessler rules, though. (Pernicious!)

    Posted: August 27, 2006 4:08 PM
    RobGrizzlie
  • bravedave

    I just posted a long and gruesome comment but I guess I just learned the hard way that I will have to limit my comment... I'll just say that besides the fact that I just beat condemned a pretty gruesome game when it comes to violence and nothing in my brain is telling me that it is alright to do it to someone in the Real World. But why would lauyers like Thompson listen to me, they are already getting money in lawsuits against violent games so why should they stop now. right? by the way ADAM you are my freakin hero man! you rock

    Posted: August 26, 2006 11:19 PM
    bravedave
  • bravedave

    I just posted a long and gruesome comment but I guess I just learned the hard way that I will have to limit my comment... I'll just say that besides the fact that I just beat condemned a pretty gruesome game when it comes to violence and nothing in my brain is telling me that it is alright to do it to someone in the Real World. But why would lauyers like Thompson listen to me, they are already getting money in lawsuits against violent games so why should they stop now. right? by the way ADAM you are my freakin hero man! you rock

    Posted: August 26, 2006 11:07 PM
    bravedave
  • bob24114

    i thought that that thompson was a dick im 12 and i know how kids are and kids might do these thing if there already violent a game can't make you violent

    bob24114

    Posted: August 24, 2006 4:41 PM
    bob24114
  • megamanxzxz

    after this loop i had a discussion with my grandma MY GRANDMA!!! even she agrees that video games are not the cause of events such as Columbine or the events Jack described. these people that commited these acts were screwed up from the start. and if GTA is to blame for all this if X amount of games were sold why aren't there X amount of crimes.

    P.S. beware the quiet ones

    Posted: August 22, 2006 11:58 PM
    megamanxzxz
  • skinnyfatguy

    like Ruka said violence is a survival tool for all humans that we will have from birth to the grave. not being able to supress that instinct is a completly other subject that im not going to tuch. so lets just all chill out and play some GTA for what it is NOT a tool for hate and aggresion but a FREAKEN GAME.

    Posted: August 22, 2006 7:08 PM
    skinnyfatguy
  • skinnyfatguy

    Video games may give you the idea but so can books, magazines,tv other people ext. If video games really teach you violence then we would have armys of master chiefs with rome total war tactical commanders and guitar hero would make evryone van halen.this is being blown way out of proption since games are not being made to train kids to kill they are made for fun, for hangin out on a lazy sunday and fragen some buddies in counterstrike or killen goblins in world of warcraft.

    Posted: August 22, 2006 7:06 PM
    skinnyfatguy
  • skinnyfatguy

    If you think about it any good game should make you violent in a very little way. When you play a video game you are living out a fantasy although it is fake you still get an adreanaline rush from the exitement of a game which makes you more on edge more awake and essintially more violent but this is irrelivent, I want to hit someone when they cut me off on the interstate on a bad this has nothing to do whith me playing grand theft auto in fact thats why i play it to live out a FANTASY its fake and i know that i would never knowingly injure somone over somthing so trivial. I think why video games are getting all the flak for this is becouse it combines all the voilence of your reguler TV with adreanaline soaked IN yo FACE action of a fps making it like pop-rocks and soda two bads dont make a good but they wont kill you (or in this case someone else) either.

    Posted: August 22, 2006 7:04 PM
    skinnyfatguy
  • Ruka

    Here's a little humanities lesson, Mr. Thompson: We have had 10,000 years of violent human history. We always will. Despite our ability to control our natural drives, we are still animals. There will *ALWAYS* be violence. Seeing it in a video game is not a drive to unleash that urge, in fact, a lot of people find it a way to supress it. Now, assuming this kid really *did* use DOOM to train himself to kill... that was one instance. The family of those children have my deepest sympathies, but this doesn't mean this is a common case. The kid did that of his own free will- not because a game told him to. HE TRAINED HIMSELF- the game didn't train HIM. I play doom and other violent games quite frequently, along with several thousand others (and yes, I confess, I played them at a rather young age, gasp!), and I have yet to succumb to this "infection". I am still a respectable member of society. To be honest, I think I have those video games to THANK for that.

    Posted: August 22, 2006 5:10 AM
    Ruka
  • Ruka

    Adam Sessler is even more of a hero to me then he ever has been before. Which is pretty big. I've got two posts or so here, so bear with me:

    Mr. Thompson has his points- BUT- he is very short sighted, and refuses to look at solutions to this "Issue" already in progress. I've gone into a store at the age of 16, went to buy an M rated game, only to have the clerk check my age. I was honest, told him I wasn't seventeen yet, and returned the game to the shelf. I was glad it happened. They cared enough to make sure someone too young wouldn't purchase something potentially harmful. PEOPLE CHECK THESE THINGS. And if they don't, their parents are sure to. The parents are a huge part of the issue, if violence in video games really is a problem. They should monitor what their kids play.

    Posted: August 22, 2006 5:04 AM
    Ruka
  • selkiestheendles

    AIM conversation between my friend Alex and I over this video:

    Shurtugal Alex: Jack thompson is an idiot
    Selkiestheendles: I know
    Selkiestheendles: Complete psycho
    Shurtugal Alex: yep
    Selkiestheendles: he describes Bully like its effing aids
    Selkiestheendles: one person plays it and they're tainted
    Selkiestheendles: anyone he comes in contact with is infected, and then the infected start to kill people
    Selkiestheendles: That'd make a sick game, actually
    Shurtugal Alex: lmao
    Shurtugal Alex: sell that to Rockstar

    Posted: August 21, 2006 9:43 PM
    selkiestheendles
  • Itachi12

    OMG Adam did a segment without making a fool out of himself.

    Posted: August 21, 2006 2:40 PM
    Itachi12
  • methadonor

    WOW, if jack played games i think his opinion would be a lot different then it is now. so far everyone that has posted here plays violent games and lives a normal life. sounds a lot like the poll they mentioned doesnt it? 91% could give a rats !@# about thompson. i am so tired of this debate.when i was in the army i played all the war games i could to get in shape and prepare for missions. what a load of crap. if this were actually true, why are there extreme isolated cases of violence happening. i would imagine the crime rates would be going through the roof compared to 10 years ago if it was. well im off to kill zombies!!! then my mother!!!

    Posted: August 21, 2006 2:36 PM
    methadonor
  • wickywoo

    And with school shootings - there's way too many causes to pinpoint video games. One doesn't simply play a video game, then say HEY IM GONNA SHOOT SOMEONE! Sorry doesn't work that way. It takes YEARS of either bad parenting, bad enviroments, mental stability issues, or all of the above... to get to that point. If someone gets to that point, whether video games (in their mind) reaffirm their decisions, they have already made their mind. Do you think if they DIDNT play that video game they wouldn't have done what they did? If you truely believe this you're just being ignorant of the facts.

    Posted: August 21, 2006 3:31 AM
    wickywoo
  • wickywoo

    Dubalo7 - saying cigarettes causing cancer is comparable to a child playing video games is so incredibly demented in so many ways. Mental issues are different from physical issues. Please keep them seperate. As for the study I think it's rubbish. If someone is playing an exciting game, their testerone levels rise and of course they become aggressive. If you're playing a kiddy game, you're not going to be excited. Therefore, you're "less violent".

    Posted: August 21, 2006 3:30 AM
    wickywoo
  • adventus_8128

    yeah i agree, g4 should def have a longer debate for adam and jack...would be extremely interesting

    Posted: August 21, 2006 2:10 AM
    adventus_8128
  • luciangel

    Remember when it was proven wrong? There are studies that support the opposition as well; you might want to look into them. Jack Thompson chose to come onto a show sponsored, supported, viewed and hosted by persons who held opinions that were not only in direct opposition of his own, but to some extent offensive to his own. It's their forum for their own defense, and he should be prepared for that.

    Posted: August 21, 2006 12:05 AM
    luciangel
  • luciangel

    Dubalo,

    You make some good points, however, if you are educated as a social psychologist you should understand a few other things as well. First of all, there is no such thing as a completely unbiased study. Numerous different things can bias a study, including the personalities of the subjects. All of your subjects came from the same geographic area, most were probably the same age group, and all of them shared the college culture. This is NOT a representative sample of the entire world. Furthermore, I don't believe that anyone on this show actually claimed to be using an unbiased sample. "Research" is constantly tested and retested for validity. Saying the present research supports a claim does not make it fact. Remember back when personality types were thought to be related to head/body size/shape?

    Posted: August 21, 2006 12:04 AM
    luciangel
  • Dubalo7

    I'd like some rational for why movies are a 1000 times worse. Sure they look more real, but with the increasing graphical quality of games, they are quickly catching up. Additionally, videogames are an active process. You can sit there and just watch a movie. Nothing happens in a videogame unless you actively control your character. Now doesn't it make more sense that something you do increases its effect on your behavior? Lilwayne -- videogames don't make you do it, but they increase the likelihood that you will act aggressive. You can deny research if you want, it doesn't make it less valid.

    Posted: August 20, 2006 10:53 PM
    Dubalo7
  • LilWayne

    I don't care what any psychological research suggests, video games don't MAKE people do anything. That's right. Video games don't MAKE people do anything. I play Halo 2 and yes I get pissed when I'm on a losing streak, but if I were to go kill someone I could not blame it on video games. Everyone should exercise self-control and quit finding something to blame their faults on. I hate how some PSYCH classes suggest that humans don't really have free will. That is a load of bull****. Thompson gives kids excuses to be bad. "Mama, I killed him because video games made me do it." DO NOT BLAME video games for violence in children. Blame parents for being so lazy as to not instill values in their children.

    Posted: August 20, 2006 10:42 PM
    LilWayne
  • joez02

    You tell him Sessler, you are the man!

    Posted: August 20, 2006 8:21 PM
    joez02
  • AWPer_Hunter

    he just has a personal vendetta against RS and T2 EVEN IF Video Games promoted violent behavior in people (which is crap) movies are 1,000 times worse....

    Posted: August 20, 2006 2:15 PM
    AWPer_Hunter
  • Oblivion_Master

    Did anyone else notice Jack started to stutter.
    You think Adam Scared? He said takestar.

    Posted: August 20, 2006 1:07 PM
    Oblivion_Master
  • Dubalo7

    I think that a very important claim is being made here: Violent games don't cause us to kill people. Any research finding when taken alone should not be used to justify the behaviors of any one person. People who do go out and commit violent crimes should not be able to use video games as an excuse. Additionally, people should not be able to sue or ban violent games for these effects. still though, it is important to remember that violent games do seem to increase aggressive behavior, so we should be cautious about them. So sessler's claims that we should be more concerned with other things are wrong. We should be concerned about all these factors and not discount any of them.

    Posted: August 20, 2006 12:59 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Haseo

    What the utter hell is jack thompson tlaking about?

    If he's saying games like "the bully" should be barred from release, then anime should be banned altogether in his eyes.

    Posted: August 20, 2006 12:31 PM
    Haseo
  • Mr_Pickles

    -=-4 words- Adam Sessler Is God-=-

    Posted: August 20, 2006 12:34 AM
    Mr_Pickles
  • Kuzkula

    I've played LOADS of violent video games, including my personal favorite Manhunt, because i'm mature enough to know not to do those things in real life. Jack is just some stuck-up-his-own-ass douchebag who thinks he's always right. Way to go Sessler, bout` time someone knocked that prick down a notch. Yknow what violent videogames do for me? They offer a release of a violent pressure that builds up on the rare occasion, which i know in my heart and soul that i could never unleash in public, but on a video game, well, simply put it keeps me from doing it in real life. So Jack, you asshole, be happy i've got manhunt to pacify my anger towards you.

    Posted: August 20, 2006 12:01 AM
    Kuzkula
  • MasterCapitalism

    I've played alot of violent video games, such as Manhunt, GTA 3/Vice City/San Andreas, Hitman, State of Emergency and the list goes on, it never made me want to go out, steal a car and wipe entire city populations off the planet! I don't believe video games cause world violence. If that was a fact, should we blame the Madrid Train Bombings on Grand Theft Auto? Blaming Video Games for violent behavior in kids and adults is just an easy way out and a distraction from the real issue how his or her violent behavior came about. Its just stupid people who think they can do what Carl Johnson does in GTA San Andreas and make a fool of themselves. Then when they get caught and finally understand what they did, they play the "Violent Video Games Caused Me to Kill" card and that my friends is what is hurting the video game industry. Video games are made for entertainment, its not real! I argee totally with what Adam Sessler had to say.

    Posted: August 19, 2006 2:48 AM
    MasterCapitalism
  • Dubalo7

    Witershins -- I am not claiming that violent games will make you kill either. But it is something that increases aggression. So all else being equal those that play violent games will be more aggressive than others. So although Thompson is stretching the argument too far, violent games are a possible factor.

    As far as all the comments about adam sessler. Although some of his points were valid, so were some of Thompsons. The only difference is that they are at the opposite extremes. The debate was about whether violent games increase real world violence. The research shows that violent games do increase aggressive tendencies. They are only one factor. So to say that they cause people to kill someone is false, but so is the claim that we don't need to worry about them. Sessler was no better than thompson

    Posted: August 18, 2006 6:31 PM
    Dubalo7
  • chubbbz

    amen to that loop and to the guy above me.
    another reason why adam sessler kiks jack thompsons a$$. wow. seriously, all these violent movies coming out, even violence in sum cartoons, porn, drugs more violence, all these things in movies and in tv, children are exposed to.But Jack(@$$) Thompson, has to blame it on video games. just like the guy above me said. Jack Thompson, youre retarted. oh yah Jack Thompson best you get a nose job so you wont be poking anyones eyes out.

    Posted: August 18, 2006 4:09 PM
    chubbbz
  • TheAnswer03_71086

    So let me get this straight, kids have access to guns, drugs, porn, and adult movies...but it's because of video games that there is violence among America's youth? Jack Thompson, you are retarded. There is a rating system in place that can be quite effective if parents and retailers assume their respective responsibilities. Those scientific studies you claim prove correlations between violence and games are either bogus or politically movitivated, or both!

    Posted: August 18, 2006 2:17 PM
    TheAnswer03_71086
  • deathcharger

    You know, it's really funny that the only thing right now driving me to violence... is Jack Thompson. I've NEVER played any type of game that has made me either, do drugs, have permiscuous sex, killed someone, or vandalized anything. And i've been a gamer since the Intellivision was created. C'mon... Mr. Thompson, you sir are a idiot.

    Posted: August 18, 2006 1:45 PM
    deathcharger
  • Inidle

    Thompson definitely did not expect such a well constructed arguement from Adam. He most likely believe him to be some uneducated gamer, and well im proud of Adam's amazing debate, and, as alot of people agree, feel that they should have an hour long discussion about it.


    Thompson can control the media his family experiences, but he needs to leave that decision for our youth with their respective parents.

    Posted: August 18, 2006 10:02 AM
    Inidle
  • Witershins

    Dubalo7, I am not holding anything you have said in contempt. My point was it is madness to accept that video games could drive someone to murder. I will be the first one to agree that video games can bring out agressive tendancies. Hell I get pissed when I die in Devil May Cry. But do I then decide to go kill someone? No there is agression granted but enough to strike someone? Thompson himself admitted that those two Colombine boys "trained on Doom" the week before they carried out the crime. Now do you train for something before you know what it is? No. There were other much more serious factors contributing to the motivation of those killers than their choice of video games. I reckon you'd have to be pretty psychotic to play something in a game like Doom and then just suddenly decide it would be fun to play it for real.

    Posted: August 18, 2006 9:32 AM
    Witershins
  • Dubalo7

    I disagree with you that the issue was snapped up. Sure some are strongly against it. But again, i refer you to this article that quantitatively examined the medias reports of the link between violent games and aggression when compared to what the research shows. The media tends to underreport. Sure in instances such as columbine, the report is going to be blown up. But on a regular day, it tends to be underreported with drastic effects (I refer you to th estatistics looking at the number of underage children in the US who own or play M rated games). But again, children are not the only concern.

    Posted: August 18, 2006 9:16 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Witershins -- Much of the research done in the US on the actual effects of these video games on aggression is done with college students. that's people age 18-22. So the effects still work on people who are passed puberty. As far as a training simulator, this is not what the research suggests (this is what Thompson claims). The research shows that all else being equal, if you play violent games (vs. nonviolent games) in a controlled laboratory setting you show increased aggression. So those who play violent games will be more aggressive than those who don't. This effect when taken with all the other factors that increase/decrease aggression will result in the ultimate outcome.

    Posted: August 18, 2006 9:14 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Witershins

    ONE incident is all they have. This Colombine affair. For one thing, how on earth could it possibly be a training simulator for murdering people? It isn't remotely realistic. It is about blowing away aliens, monsters and zombies with futuristic lazers and whatnot. Now correct me if I'm wrong but the notion of blowing away aliens has only been around since, oh let me think, they first thought up the term science fiction. The reasoning behind this is preposterous. The murderers might as well have said that they trained reading War of the Worlds or watching Men in Black. This issue contained the vaguest of references to video games and BAM the media and other bleeding hearts snapped it up. Sooner o later they will find another reason. What are peoples thoughts on this?

    Posted: August 18, 2006 9:05 AM
    Witershins
  • Witershins

    A study done just last year (In Australia, don't know about America sorry) revealed that the average age of gamers was 25. Let me repeat that, 25. Now unless you're really unlucky most people have finished puberty when they hit 25 thus rendering Thompsons primart arguement utterly pointless. This is nothing but a bitter circle. The media, parents and whoever else are always searching for a scapegoat to explain why the 'youth' of today are so 'screwed up'. First it was rap music, then the internet. Now video games have provided a healthy target. As this massive emerging market, what could be better than claiming it is growing off the moral destruction of our youth?

    Posted: August 18, 2006 9:03 AM
    Witershins
  • Witershins

    Greetings, I hail from Australia, one of the only countires in the world that doesn't have an R18+ rating. Why don't we have it? Well our do good government believes that the intorduction of such a rating would open the floodgates on myriad violent games upon our impressionable youth. But the fact of the matter is the absence of said rating means that games that by all rights should be R like GTA etc. are instead available to any kid of 15 years (or just as likely, younger with a brother of 15+ years) with the rating of MA stamped on them for the sheer reason that that is the highest rating available. Besides who says youth are the only ones who play video games?

    Posted: August 18, 2006 9:01 AM
    Witershins
  • Dubalo7

    As far as Klebold and Harris's parents -- the kids were actually raised in pretty good homes and had pretty good lives. We still don't know what went wrong. Many still point to the games. Others point to peer rejection (which according to the research seems to be even more important than the violent games they played). Yet we can't point to one thing individually. Bad parenting, violent games, rejection are all just pieces of the puzzle. All else being equal, each one can increase aggression. So in the end, we should be concerned (and the psychologicl community is) about each one. You all just think that videogames are being singled out because of your vested interest in the topic. Social psychologists don't just study aggression from video games, we study aggression. VGs just happen to be one of the factors.

    Posted: August 18, 2006 8:42 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Unfortunately, right now they aren't doing a good job. This media uproar over the topic just makes it worse. It puts these violent games in the public eye and makes them more popular and desirable. Again, I don't know the credibility of this study, but a recent NBC news report claimed statistics showing that 90% of videogame players under the age of 18 had played an M rated game and that 50% owned one. A rating system can't work if the public is misinformed and doesn't care about it.

    Posted: August 18, 2006 8:38 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    In the end it is unlikely that games will ever be restricted by the government. Look at smoking. Although a lot has been done to make it more expensive for smokers, they still can't ban them. THe major focus in recent years has been on educating the masses. If the govt gets involved it will be a sad state of affairs. Like the VG industry the motion picture industry also used to self-regulate. When the govt got involved restrictions were tighter for a while. Today however, the govt isn't really doing a good job. The VG industry should be motivated to regulate themselves. They don't want to have a bad public image. This is why they should do a better job than the govt.

    Posted: August 18, 2006 8:36 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    If the videogame idustry owned up to the research they could point out that the research also suggests that this is one effect on aggression. Although some of the research has shown a correlation between violent game playing and what would be considered violent crime (see the first article posted above), the experimental research shows that it is only one effect on aggression. This denies any lawsuits claiming that videogames were the direct cause of a shooting. It is one possible cause, but it only increased the likelihood. Knowing and owning up to the research and what it actually shows, would help the videogame industry's cause so much more than denying it. This is why much of the later debate on this forum has argued for education, rather than restriction.

    Posted: August 18, 2006 8:32 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    PistolPyro -- Yes, Jack Thompson doesn't really know what he's talking about. He overstates the research. But what makes sessler an "expert" on this topic? He reviews games, he doesn't study their effects on behavior. The major problem here, and one that we've touched on already, is that even though the research shows a link between video game violence and aggression, the video game industry and the media continue to ignore it. Of course people are going to side with Thompson, he is erring on the side of caution. He is taking the moral (yet still irrational) position.

    Posted: August 18, 2006 8:30 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Diszendent -- that is one study. Refer to this article for a breakdown of the research on video game violence: http://www.public.iastate.edu/ ~vasser/pubs/04CA.pdf
    Rhiotaku -- Woah, Woah. Who ever said anything about the govt regulating. If you look at the last sequence of posts the general consensus is that the govt shouldn't play a role.
    As far as the media, yes they did talk about Klebold and Harris and their association with DOOM, but a recent scholarly article showed that the media actually underreports the effects: http://www.psychology.iastate. edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000 -2004/01BA.ap.html

    Posted: August 18, 2006 8:16 AM
    Dubalo7
  • PistolPyro_v7

    This was a really sad conversation. On one side we have an old man who doesn't understand modern society, and on the other side we have a more educated person but is so disgusted with the conversation in hand he can't make the best argument in the world without getting extremely aggrovated "I understand". This is simply a pathetic. Jack is one sad man hiding behind Columbine as a crutch. Just because the kids played "Doom" would never have changed anything. If a kid is that screwed up to even think about doing something like that one game will not tip the scale. Jack Thompson needs to be the one that is getting sued for brain washing he is doing to parents. Yes I said parents. Parents around the age of 40 hear this guy speak and they will soak it up in a second because they also want something to blame violence on. If you do not want your kid playing games like bully try following the tiny rating system the game community as come up with...

    Posted: August 18, 2006 2:50 AM
    PistolPyro_v7
  • RhiOtaku

    ...What about football parents? I don't remember ever hearing about the government being needed to be called in when parents were beating the hell out of each other over a KIDS football game!

    I personally believe there are much greater ills in the world than a video game. I get more aggressive during an NHL playoff game, than when I'm playing Halo2, Counter-Strike, UT2K6, or any other host of "violent video games". Does that mean that the government should regulate what I watch? No it does not. People need to being taking responsibility for their actions. And the media needs to stop coddling to parents who refuse to raise their children.

    If I remeber correctly the media are the ones that brought to light that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold played Doom. And of course the parents of those two didn't want to admit fault with raising their kids, so they accepted what experts told them.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 6:12 PM
    RhiOtaku
  • RhiOtaku

    ok so I've spend the last hour reading over all these posts. And the general concensus I get is that because video games make people more likely to reacte with "aggressive behavior" (never mind what "aggressive behavior" fully entails), we should have the government step in and regulate video games. Ok I can understand the concern.

    What about alchohol? Now see I know that everyone's gonna be "we're talking about violence in children". Well apparently somebody left Dubalo out of that one. And I quote "Ladypoison -- again, the effects aren't only found in children. They have been found in college age samples"
    Last time I checked, alchohol was directly attributed to more cases of "aggresive behavior", hell even downright violent behavior, than video games can even be connected with. But no...society accepts alchohol....

    Posted: August 17, 2006 6:10 PM
    RhiOtaku
  • DisZendent

    Regarding any psychological "research" demonstrating a CAUSAL relationship between any two behaviors--that is complete and utter B.S.

    A quick search online revealed this quote out of a recent study:

    "There is a causal link between playing the first-person shooting game in our experiment and brain-activity pattern that are considered as characteristic for aggressive cognitions and effects"

    *Behavioral* research only reveals CORRELATIONS between the dependent (violent behavior) and independent variables (violent gaming). Just because there is a causal *neurological* effect DOES NOT MEAN that behavior will follow! It doesn't even mean that the subject will be predisposed to violent behavior. All it means is that violent gaming activates the area of the brain that is also activated by violent behavior.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 4:43 PM
    DisZendent
  • Dubalo7

    So task force action anyone? Lets develop a game where instead of shooting people you have to give them flyers that inform them of the risks of playing violent games. It just might work...

    Posted: August 17, 2006 12:49 PM
    Dubalo7
  • missbeck511

    yes.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 12:38 PM
    missbeck511
  • missbeck511

    dm404- I wouldn't want to change or limit games, I think. Again, 1st amendment. That's why the rating system is so important. It is a tricky thing for developers, though- should we tone it down to make it desirable to a broader range of people, or retain the original (intentional, artistic) feeling and give ourselves a possible disadvantage? But I think it's better to have developers thinking like that than to have them trying to make each game more gory than the next. And there will be exceptions to the violence-for-its-own-sake FPS trend, like Silent Hill, but that's why gamers need to be educated about what's out there.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 11:55 AM
    missbeck511
  • Dubalo7

    That should be less fearful of the world and more accepting of violence (not more fearful).

    Posted: August 17, 2006 11:06 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Mmetelus -- desentization is not a good thing. They've done research on this. It leads people to become fearful of the world. Additionally, perceiving aggression as less of a problem results in people responding with more extreme aggression (as their act seems less violent).

    Posted: August 17, 2006 10:44 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    I think one thing that has to be questioned is why people buy violent games in the first place. Some of it comes from the misconception that we need an outlet for aggression. But it seems as if people don't find violence all that appealing when compared to gameplay elements (I've seen one study on this, and it wasn't conclusive). I think that some of it may actually come from the controversy itself. When you're told not to do something, you want to do it even more (reactance). Jack thompson is, in a way, to blame for the popularity of the games he hates so much.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 8:44 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    dm404 -- so for your response to missbeck. This is a good point. Some games really do come off as a masterpiece, if you will. Silent Hill is an interesting one. There is definitely less active violence by the player themself, but their is a lot of gore and blood in the game. I haven't played the newest updates of it, but as I remember you really ahve to exercise self-control and only shoot when it is absolutely necessary. AUGHH, if only ethics would allow us to do long-term longitudinal studies we could see if games like this engender as much/or less aggression as FPS games.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 8:40 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    So basically, I agree with Missbeck on a lot of these issues. Government regulation is the wrong way to go. If anyone doesn't understand research it's the government. Plus, I think many people would be all that more frustated with the gaming industry to know that part of their tax dollars were going to regulate video games. And I think the gaming industry can do a better job themselves. The ESRB is motivated to keep themselves out of the spotlight. I think they should take some further steps though. I'd like to see what standards they base their judgments on, though. There have been some qualitative analyses of video games and they tend to find that even E rated games contain a lot of violence in them.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 8:32 AM
    Dubalo7
  • dm404

    That last message was for missbeck511 by the way

    Posted: August 17, 2006 8:29 AM
    dm404
  • dm404

    I mean, if they do understand all the findings, but refuse to follow it feeling it would compromise the artistic integrety in some of their games. An example would be a game like Silent Hill, that's meant to be psychologicaly harrowing experience. Would the Konami have to remove elements in the game that's linked to a person's aggression or add all kinds of positive elements to counterbalance this - thus ruining the total mood and atmosphere to something more lighthearted? I'm just wondering exactly how drastic will violent games (or games in general) need to be changed due to this research?

    I whole heartedly agree with your last part. That while developers have a right to make it, we as consumers have a right not to buy it.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 8:27 AM
    dm404
  • Dubalo7

    3) as far as the use of the research to further the anti-video game lobbyists cause. Well it already has been used to do so. that's why it's important for people in the industry to know about the research. Jack Thompson will become a nonfactor. The research shows that although it does increase aggression, it is not the one cause of aggression. Although it may contribute, it is up to a host of other factors as well. And anyway, it was that person's choice to play the game.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 8:27 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Oh and I suggest just more education. Fines are uneccesary and usually don't result in much change. When you educate people properly, they feel that they are the ones instantiating the change, not that they are being forced into it. 2) Well we should respect their rights to create whatever they want. Hell, it's their right. But they should also respect the fact that their game is a violent one. Demonizing them... well that usually just causes more controversy and results in more people wanting to buy the game. I leave it up to them to decide what they want to do. I would suggest that they put a strong disclaimer in their game. It will protect them legally as well.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 8:24 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    dm404 -- sorry for the smug attitude. I'm a sarcastic person by nature. Anywho, here is my response to your questions. 1) No one else should take the reigns. The same thing happened with the movie industry. They used to self-regulate their movies. They did a damn good job. Then the government took over. THey were very restrictive for a while, but then they started to get more and more lax. I think the video game industry can do a better job than government can. Nevertheless, some research should be put into whether games at an E level should really be for everyone. Just because it has a cartoon character, does not mean that won't spur aggression.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 8:19 AM
    Dubalo7
  • missbeck511

    ...otherwise we will be the other unmoving extreme (the Adam Sesslers) and the moderates, who will decide the issue, will be the uninformed public. They've never played video games (at least not violent ones), they don't understand the ESRB, and they would be unwilling to check on every game they buy their kids. They are the very people that probably want laws against video games in the first place, so they don't have to do anything. If we make a point to inform them using logic and science, they may decide to join us. But otherwise, we will probably get some more bureaucratic restrictions on gaming. Also, if we make a point to say: "We're trying the best we can to please EVERYBODY, not just gamers and not just extremists," we come off as the good guys.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 7:53 AM
    missbeck511
  • missbeck511

    The danger of being moderate, of course, and acknowledging the research is that politics will take it too far in both directions. This debate was a good example of that. The research shows that violent video games add to aggression. So Jack Thompson says "Ah yes! They CAUSE VIOLENT CRIME!" and Adam Sessler says "But no! There is a weak connection to violence and therefore NO EFFECT!" So yes, if the research is acknowledged the Jack Thompsons of the world will take it the wrong way. But moderates hold the power in politics. Whoever is in the middle and can waver on an issue will eventually cast the deciding vote. I know that's a sweeping statement, but it's based on my reading. If we make a point to correctly interpret the research, the Jack Thompsons will look foolish stay in the minority. We can cast our votes against them while keeping the research intact...

    Posted: August 17, 2006 7:48 AM
    missbeck511
  • missbeck511

    By "demonize" do you mean take legal action? Because, then, I think not. But, if you mean that gamers should speak out against developers that try to go against the ESRB or that completely deny the (numerous) findings on video games/aggression, I say yes. Like I said before, gamers need to be self-aware and moderate on this issue. Yes, violent video games may add to a person's aggression. Yes, many other things do that too. And we as a group can regulate ourselves. As for respecting game developers' rights... of course they can make whatever they want, that's the 1st amendment. But we can decide not to buy a game that flies in the face of decent regulations like the ESRB. We do have a good deal of control over them, as they don't make money when we don't buy.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 7:41 AM
    missbeck511
  • missbeck511

    The ESRB is doing their job. The responsibility should rest on the shoulders of parents... but parents can be both extraordinarily naive and whipped by their children. Older gamers should be responsible for themselves. Laws could be put in place to regulate game sales, but they would be unenforceable. There are just too many places that sell video games. And no law punishing a consumer could be put in place based on ESRB guidelines, as the ESRB is not a gvt. institution. This is the problem: people aren't willing to regulate themselves, so they want to put in crazy laws. The ESRB's job (other than ratings) is mainly to regulate the advertising for games. They also try to watch retailers, but, again, there are too many stores for them to enforce much of anything. So, in the end, it is the consumer's responsibility.

    Posted: August 17, 2006 7:33 AM
    missbeck511
  • dm404

    A couple of questions I have:

    1. If the ESRB isn't doing their job, then exactly who should take the reins? And exactly how much more do they need to do? More education? Stiffer fines? Mandatory jail sentences?

    2. If some developers refuse to do their part even after understanding the research and the supposed impact their games have, should we demonize them for not doing so? Or respect their rights to create whatever they want?

    3. While this research is meant to be in the 'middle' of the controversey, isn't it realisticaly possible that the Anti-Violent-Game crowd might use this to further their means to ban or further regulate violent games now that they know there is at least some negative psychological link to it?

    And Dubalo7 if you're going to respond to this, please leave out any of your smug attitude. I just want some serious answers to these.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:58 PM
    dm404
  • Dubalo7

    Great... now everyone's going to start pleading the insanity defense. Seriously, lets stop claiming that people have to have something seriously psychologically wrong with them for them to enact extreme aggression. There are enough negative stereotypes out there about the mentally disabled. You don't have to be "crazy" to enact extreme forms of aggression. having a lot of environmental factors that increase aggressive behavior is enough. Being really drunk is enough. Being in the "heat of the moment" is enough.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 10:39 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Toryn

    There are plenty of studys that prove Thompson's point however its not just video games... put a kid in a room send an adult in to hug a blow up clown then have the adult leave...the kid has a friendly reaction...same thing with another kid...send an adult in and have the adult attack the blow up clown...kid becomes aggressively violent toward the clown...hes trying to say that the psychological study is 100% fool proof and its not..there are too many variables that can affect the data any psych student can tell you that. its a generalization

    Posted: August 16, 2006 9:44 PM
    Toryn
  • Toryn

    Ok, listening to Jack Thompson ramble on we all get the message hes saying but hes trying to place blame on the Devlopers NOT THE ACTUAL KIDS COMMINTING THESE CRIMES! I call bull! you cannot hold the Developers responsable for actions taken by a kid with mental problems. Its the parens and the kid themselves who should take the blame. 1) obviously the kids messed up enough to take this crap to reality 2) the parents are dumb enough to either buy the kid the game (possibly). and 3) Parents are missing the signs of their child having problems with reality and a GAME! Adam was incredibly smart with his choice of wording tonite. Taking Thompsons words and turning his case around back against him. Parents have influence on what their kids learn through their actions. If these kids are taking this stuff literally then theres something psychologically wrong with them probably developed durring their environmental learning stage.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 9:39 PM
    Toryn
  • Dubalo7

    Ok, now that I see your other posts there isn't much reason for my post (except for the whole violent music thing)

    Posted: August 16, 2006 9:34 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Ladypoison -- again, the effects aren't only found in children. They have been found in college age samples. And who is responsible for parents not putting as much effort monitoring their children. Well, the media for one (including Sessler) as they continue to deny the research and use poor logic to try to contradict the research. Also people in the video game industry that deny the effects. As far as the music thing again, music is a passive process, video games are an active process (you control the character) this is why it is such an interesting area for study. Now research has been conducted on aggressive music as well and has found similar effects. This does not dispel the research on violent video games however.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 9:32 PM
    Dubalo7
  • LadyPoisonX

    I'm not pro-violence, but it needs to be understood by both game makers and buyers that it needs to be watched for. Parents need to do their job and watch what they are buying, and game makers have to make sure they are clear on why certain games are not suited for players of a certain age group. I don't have any children or anything but I can see why parents are worried, but they should ask themselves, 'What am I buying for my child?' 'Is this safe for them?' Is it suited for their age group?' It takes two to make a problem but it only needs one person to help fix it.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 9:30 PM
    LadyPoisonX
  • LadyPoisonX

    When I was 16 I wanted to buy Devil May Cry but I could not because the rating was too high and the store told me I would need a parent to by it for me. I am 20 now and can get what I want but the fact of the matter is that parents also need to do their job. Not all games are made for children, but there are parents out there who will buy their child the game and CD they want to shut them up when they need to look at what they are buying. Most people who play games are 16-30, and this demographic does not want to have their only choice of games to be Dora the Explorer and the magical Unicorn.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 9:29 PM
    LadyPoisonX
  • LadyPoisonX

    This too will also be in sections: I agree maybe it was a bit harsh but this is this century's witch-hunt and a lot of companies can be at stake. I do agree with Adam, its also the parent's job to monitor what their children, play, watch, listen and do. I hear a lot worse in hip-hop songs than I have ever seen in games. The rating system is doing its job, its parental vision that needs to pick up slack.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 9:27 PM
    LadyPoisonX
  • Dubalo7

    Yes the research can only do so much (we are bound by ethics to not run certain studies). But it is still much more than you can do with personal experience. I don't care to go through it all again, and I doubt you'll even come back to the forum so I'll just refer you to the earlier posts I made. And again here is one of the more recent review articles on the state of the research on the link between violent video games and aggressive behavior. Copy and paste everyone! http://www.public.iastate.edu/ ~vasser/pubs/04CA.pdf

    Posted: August 16, 2006 9:17 PM
    Dubalo7
  • CloverMagic

    Research only does so much. Being clumped into a group based on a small group of OTHER individuals being studied on stimulas that probably half of serious gamers don't play (god, who plays sports games besides the weird old dads who don't touch other games?) is a bit insulting.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be rolling up some cows. Because I'd rather be doing that than getting icky human blood on my hands.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:33 PM
    CloverMagic
  • CloverMagic

    Sure, for a day or so I'll revel in the glory of slaying hordes of monsters. But do those aggressive tendencies stay? Nope. In a day I'll be back to being the shy little girl huddling in the corner. And I came from the worst kind of background possible - depressino, verbal abuse from family and peers, you name it, I had it. So apparently I should have aggressive tendencies and want to blow off everyone's head. Apparently I have no idea of how to peacefully solve a problem, despite being the peacemaker of all my friends who tends to solve everything through talking.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:32 PM
    CloverMagic
  • CloverMagic

    I certainly know that the ones with agression problems in *my* high school were the over-bearing jocks who picked on us physically-weaker "gamers" - not that they would hit me, being a girl, but hey. That didn't stop them from insulting me. And yet I, the person who runs from all conflicts that I can, apparently will have more aggressive tendencies simply because I've bought Dirge of Cerberus just now and will spend several days planting bullets in Shinra soldier brains? Or how about Katamari Damacy and the pleasure I get from rolling up screaming people on a ball and watching them twitch? (Best pasttime ever!) Quite frankly, I'd rather blow up brains in a game than in real life. Real people are icky and I dislike coming into contact with them. I might get cooties from *gasp* real life!

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:31 PM
    CloverMagic
  • CloverMagic

    Personally, if old Mr. Jack is going to get his panties in a wad about violence in children, he shouldn't be looking at video games but children's sports. You know, where the parents and coaches regularily encourage the kids to beat the hell out of the other team. Real peaceful there. Continued...

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:30 PM
    CloverMagic
  • Dubalo7

    Well, I guess I should actually say that self-regulation failure isn't the root of all negative behavior, but it seems to be why we do the nasty things we do. If you want to know what self-regulation failure is, just go get drunk. Its just a breakdown in your ability to control your impulses and a favoring of short term rewards over long-term consequences.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 6:55 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    MMetelus -- the internal reasons is actually more of a focus of social psychology. so although we study things like videogame violence and aggression, the research is used to support a theory called the general aggression model. Also, I personally do research on self-regulation failure, which really seems to be at the root of most negative behavior. We are currently working on research looking at what causes self-regulation failure, and what can be done to increase self-regulatory strength. I completely agree with you on the liability issue. People shouldn't be able to blame games for their behavior. If we could blame all the things that increase aggression, no one would ever go to jail for murder.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 6:50 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    I think that the near future holds a lot of promise however. The research is getting better and the focus has shifted to trying to identify factors within the game that can moderate the effects of violent games on aggressive behavior. I also think that the video game industry is making more of a concerted effort to produce games that are incredibly fun, and nonviolent (e.g. katamari damacy). The introduction of the Wii is supposed to bring video games to a wider audience. Hopefully, this will help to paint a brighter picture for the videogame industry in the future and encourage people to become more educated about videogames.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 6:00 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    So somebody definitely isn't listening. So kudos to the gaming industry. I commend them for a lot of what they've done over the past years. Jeers however to parents and to the media that alleviates the concern to parents (and don't forget that we need to worry about college aged people as well).

    Posted: August 16, 2006 5:57 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Yes, I do interchange aggressive behavior and violence. Maybe it is wrong to do so. But it is just a forum after all. The research shows aggression. If we take violence as meaning violent crime then violent games could increase the likelihood of it, but I'm unaware of anything more than correlational on that issue. If we just think of violence as a synonym for aggression then the same relationship holds true. I accept that the ESRB does exist. I agree with you that it's not as effective as we would like to think. Now I don't know if this is based on good research, but a recent NBC program stated that there was research showing that in their sample 50% of children under 18 owned an M rated game and that 90% of children have played one.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 5:50 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Evolutionarily speaking, this is all we can expect the brain to be able to do. There would have been no reason to develop new regions to deal with purely psychological experiences if we could co-opt other areas of the brain that can already process this information. Given that TV and video games are relatively new sources of information, we also wouldn't expect the brain to have developed other ways of handling the information different than real world experiences.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 1:14 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    There is also an abundance of research coming out right now to show that psychological and physical experiences are not as distinct as we though. Mark Leary and his colleagues recently published an article showing that experiencing physical pain and emotional pain (in this case social rejection) activated the same areas of the brain. One of my colleagues recently published an article showing that experiencing social rejection increases your physical pain tolerance. After being rejected participants were more able to withstand physical pain than those who had been accepted or a control condition that was neither rejected nor accepted. I think you give too much credit to human reasoning. The brain doesn't act the way we'd like it to

    Posted: August 16, 2006 12:05 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    So what about video games. well one of the findings we know is that playing violent games increases the accessibility of hostile cognitions. Aggressive thoughts are more easily brought to mind. This is the case with all violent media. Our cognitive network gets loaded with aggressive cognitions. Now when we are faced with an ambiguously aggressive situation we have more ready access to these aggressive cognitions. This makes us more likely to respond with aggression and this aggressive response will be amplified. This is the process by which this experience from the virtual world can be transmitted to real world experiences. This is also explained in that article I posted.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:49 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    As far as the generalizability of behavior across contexts (e.g. from the virtual world to the real world). Lets take the case of how you feel when you have a gun pointed at you for the first time. Based on your assumption we would have no reason to fear this situation as we have never had any real world experience with this. We've only seen them on TV and in video games. We've seen them injure people, but we can't assume that this will happen to us. We should express no fear toward this object then.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:46 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Most domesticated dogs don't actually fight anyway, but I'll answer this question as well. So through reinforcement processes we can learn to be more aggressive. But this does not happen in a vaacuum. Other reinforcement processes are leading us to be less aggressive. However, the presence of something that reinforces aggressive behavior, although it can be cancelled out by other learning, does not nullify the factor that is reinforcing the aggressive behavior.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:40 AM
    Dubalo7
  • missbeck511

    sorry about the double post

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:37 AM
    missbeck511
  • Dubalo7

    Where is this research that states the exact opposite. All I've seen are studies that find null results. these null results are almost always due to a small sample size or other methodological problems and cannot refute the claims of studies that show the effect (this is an issue of scientific methodology). I refer you to this article for a clear statement of the current state of research: http://www.public.iastate.edu/ ~vasser/pubs/04CA.pdf

    As far as the football thing. The idea that football is cathartic in nature and can release aggression was debunked by behavioral research decades ago. There is research showing that participation in high contact high school sports (e.g. football) result in increased aggression outside of the context of the game when compared to those who play non-contact sports (e.g. track and baseball).

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:36 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Chickenmasterr

    If violent games trained you to be more aggressive, wouldn’t the dogs fight more when they got older? I mean, you become more violent when you play GTA, a video game, so wouldn’t logic suggest that the dogs play fighting would have the same effect? Another example: Football. My friends play football, but do they go around tackling people all the time, or really becoming more aggressive at all? No. Because it’s a game, a real game, not something on a TV screen. In football, you run around, with your actual body, and try to do the most damage possible to the guy carrying the balls actual body. If you injure him severely, good job! He is out of the game, and cant play anymore! When you hit the other players enough, you take the ball, and run into your goal. You win! Wouldn’t that be rewarding violent behavior as well?

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:27 AM
    Chickenmasterr
  • Chickenmasterr

    Dubalo7, all of this research rhetoric you keep spouting is pointless, because we have research that states the exact opposite of your claims. Also, all that bullshit you said about “GTA rewarding people for violent behavior” is just that: bullshit. Even cats and dogs can tell the difference between play behavior, and actual behavior. By your logic, you should keep your puppies from play fighting because it will “encourage their violent behavior”, which makes no sense, because it is a natural thing for dogs and cats to do. In fact, after they get past the age that they do play fight, they stop almost completely.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:26 AM
    Chickenmasterr
  • Dubalo7

    Missbeck -- Don't worry, I wasn't trying to attack you. You asked a question and I wanted to answer it for you. And I completely agree with your point. Gamers do trap themselves by trying to deny the research. Lawyers trap themselves by tryign to overstate the research.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:17 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    So yes, you can play violent games and not be an aggressive person. But this does not mean that the game is not making you more likely to respond with aggression. So lets say that you play violent games but everything else about you is fine. On a regular day, you're probably not going to be aggressive. But lets consider a day in which a lot of stressors act upon you. Things that would make you more likely to respond with aggression. Well the added presence of violent video game play is going to make you more likely to respond with aggression than if you didn't.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:12 AM
    Dubalo7
  • missbeck511

    i threw myself in as an extra example- the meat of my argument was in other places. and i agree with you, dubalo7.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:10 AM
    missbeck511
  • missbeck511

    But even in this extreme case, in which my "subjects" ONLY play violent video games, the video games are only one factor in their aggression. I also think that the content and the language of some games, not the act of shooting enemies, is the aggression-triggering factor, but that's a moot point. People that suggest that normal, happy teenagers who randomly pick up DOOM will immediately start shooting people in real life are always wrong. Connecting video games with violent crime is a little outlandish. But they do have an effect, and I think as gamers we trap ourselves by trying to deny it. (the end of my post.)

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:09 AM
    missbeck511
  • Dubalo7

    Also, as far as interpreting your own behavior, everyone is really bad at this. This is why we can't rely on self-report data. If we ask someone how aggressive they are, it's all going to depend on their reference point and what they consider aggression. So even if you do exhibit aggression, if you compare yourself to a serial killer, or any other aggressive person, you could say that you are not an aggressive person. Aggression also comes in many forms. There is verbal and physical, direct and indirect, hostile and instrumental aggression. So if we ask you if you are aggressive and you look to all the times you hit someone, you could easily say no, discounting all the times that you raised your voice or talked sht behind someones back.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:05 AM
    Dubalo7
  • missbeck511

    But even in this extreme case, in which my "subjects" ONLY play violent video games, the video games are only one factor in their aggression. I also think that the content and the language of some games, not the act of shooting enemies, is the aggression-triggering factor, but that's a moot point. People that suggest that normal, happy teenagers who randomly pick up DOOM will immediately start shooting people in real life are always wrong. Connecting video games with violent crime is a little outlandish. But they do have an effect, and I think as gamers we trap ourselves by trying to deny it. (the end of my post.)

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:04 AM
    missbeck511
  • Dubalo7

    Missbeck511 -- well, as far as exceptions to the rule, we'd have to say no. But let me explain. So when we run a study and find an effect it is based on a large number of people playing the game. There will be individual variation within people, but our statistical procedures as well as random assignment can rule out these random factors. So why wouldn't you be an aggressive person? well, partly it is because for all the factors that increase aggression, there are also other factors that can decrease aggression. In a way they can cancel each other out. Still however, the presence of causes of aggression will make you more likely to act aggressive than if you didn't have that force acting on you.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:02 AM
    Dubalo7
  • missbeck511

    These people are also (men) always degrading women, or (women) full of low self-esteem. Why? It could be for any number of reasons. In individual cases, I wouldn't discard any possible factor- after all, this is my observation, not a controlled study. But, based, again, on my own experience, I think that the two main reasons for this behavioral trend are (rap) music and violent video games. (I won't go into the music thing, because it's not the subject of the debate.)

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:02 AM
    missbeck511
  • missbeck511

    I've watched people in my class play games, and I've seen that certain people only play FPSes. These people are, in general, far more aggressive than the rest of the class. It's not even that they fight in the hallways (other people do that too, although these gamers always seem to be involved in the fighting), but they are quicker to get mad when someone disagrees with them, quicker to yell and swear, and quicker to resort to violence in conflicts. Their grades have all slipped to the C range, even the ones that used to be smart before we all got laptops.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 11:01 AM
    missbeck511
  • missbeck511

    I go to a private high school. It's extremely small, so everyone knows the details of everyone else's personal life. Most peoples' home lives are good- after all, we're rich kids. The other thing that's important about my school is that we have a laptop program. Everyone has a computer, and therefore everyone can play video games in class.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 10:59 AM
    missbeck511
  • Dubalo7

    If they are tested and show that they account for the aggression, well fine. We'd love to be able to tell the VG industry what they should be careful about in games. That's the aim of one of my research programs. But if the research is not done we cannot make claims about it. The absence of the research does not, however, make claims from the other side relevant either. And anyway, most of these factors are trivial at best when consider in opposition to the overwhelming body of literature on media violence and aggression. When you have 50 studies showing that violent games cause aggression, you need a fairly large number of studies to show the oppossite.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 10:58 AM
    Dubalo7
  • missbeck511

    But I do believe that violent video games can have an effect on people's aggression. When I say "violent" games, I'm mostly talking about the first person shooter craze that seems to be sweeping my school and other M-rated, gory games. This is based on studies I have read (which seem to hold no water here, so you can discount them if you're so inclined), my logic, and my experience.

    I am a 17-year-old female gamer. I play the whole range of games- from shooting games to puzzle games to RPGs. I don't play very many violent games. I only play Halo, but I am familiar with the genre even though I don't buy every FPS on the market. But I am not an aggressive person. I do well in school, I'm well-socialized, etc. etc. Is this a result of the fact that there's an exception to the rule? I don't really believe in exceptions to rules. I do believe in gradients.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 10:58 AM
    missbeck511
  • missbeck511

    I'd like to add my opinion.

    First off: I thought the debate was okay. The research was misused by both sides, and at the end the quality of the arguments went WAY downhill. Some good points were raised, though, about parents' censorship of young children's games. The comments also raised a good point about the difference between violent crime and aggression.

    Jack Thompson's argument holds no water. Since he has no/little experience with actual violent games or gamers, he makes ridiculous claims about "training" and wants to link games to all violent crime in teens. I want to make it clear that I think he's totally off base, and so is the whole hypersensitive community that wants to claim the same thing. Continued in many more posts.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 10:57 AM
    missbeck511
  • Dubalo7

    We can never absolutely claim that video games are harmful enough to mandate that they shouldn't be released (due to ethical considerations of the studies that need to be run, same thing as the cigarette/lung cancer association). But according to all of our scientific knowledge that we have accumulated the relationship holds up and is causal. As far as the other factors -- many of the ones that have been mentioned on this forum have been addressed. As far as any that haven't, we can't say that these rule out the causal link as we don't have information on them yet.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 10:57 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    The simple fact is that the state of the research clearly points to the fact that violent games increase aggression. Others have tried to disprove this effect and have failed. There is more to be made by showing that violent games don't cause aggressive behavior than the reverse (e.g. money for research/publicity). But these studies seem to ellude us. And it's not for a lack of trying. I've talked to many who have tried. None can present compelling evidence against this point. So the current state of the research shows a causal link and gives us no reason to believe anything differently. Do we, as responsible scientists, try to mandate that people can't buy violent games? No. We just advise that people exhibit caution.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 10:52 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Additionally, I am not making the leap that Jack Thompson is. I have stated over and over again that the claims he makes overstate the findings of the research. The only point that I agree with him on is that the current state of the research overwhelmingly points to the causal effect of video game violence on increased aggression. Do video games cause people to kill? No. They are only one factor that can increase the likelihood. But since they increase the likelihood we should exhibit caution with them. Additionally, they make people more aggressive than if they weren't to play them. So even if they don't shoot someone, they are more likely to respond with aggression. This should also caution us against them.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 10:49 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    I am not just throwing them out. As far as stating that violent games are the root cause, do I have to reference you to all my posts saying that violent games are not the only cause of aggression. I never dismissed the myriad of factors that increase a person's aggression. And what's the difference between an ingame reward and a real life reward. If people learn a contingency between to factors that can be generalized to other similar situations. This is backed up by decades of research in behavioral psychology.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 10:46 AM
    Dubalo7
  • ShadowProphet

    Oh as to the reinforcing for killing thing (missed your post earlier)... Theres a difference between a ingame reward and reward in real life. And to make the leap of logic that a ingame reward is just as good, or as powerful as a reward in the real world is a kin to the logic Jack Thompson uses to blame video games. Rediculous and delusional.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 10:23 AM
    ShadowProphet
  • Tehodoki_Dcat

    SESSLER IS GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    O_O

    Posted: August 16, 2006 10:20 AM
    Tehodoki_Dcat
  • ShadowProphet

    I never jumped to any conclusion about music. I said it could be one thing. So could the control scheme. So could a myriad of other factors. Factors you seem all too willing to throw out in order to 'prove' to me that the violence in video games is the root cause. Can you be sure that its not the combination of multiple factors that causes it? Perhapse its not one single thing at all but a combination of them? You don't know and neither do I. But you'd rather dismiss such things pointing to studies that ignore such posibilities as to proving 'fact'. I agree these things should be explored. Wether or not they should be a huge concern is another issue entirely.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 9:26 AM
    ShadowProphet
  • Dubalo7

    Oh and as far as rewarding people for violence and conditioning them toward violence. Sure, this could be an explanation for that study. But aren't you reinforced for killing in a lot of games. In GTA when you kill people you can receive money to buy clothes. Additionally, killing people is necessary to advance through the levels. So in this same way, can't we say that violent games are conditioning people to act aggressively? There are some games out there (e.g. splinter cell i think) that give you the option of using evasion instead of killing. But still there are many games that do reinforce you for killing.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 9:23 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Oh... I forgot to say more about the music. I've made this comment before, but anywho. I'm not sure if they've run a study with vs. without music. I don't understand however, how you can jump to the conclusion that a passive process (such as listening to music) could cause aggression, whereas a violent game (an active process) could not. Even if it is the violent music in the game, is the music not still part of that game? Should the publisher of that game not then reduce the violence in the music? The simple fact that violent music can also increase aggressive behavior does not rule out the role fo the gameplay itself. It would just be more cause for concern that these two were so often paired with each other.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 9:16 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    I don't doubt that the music can also cause increased aggression. Any experiment I post, when standing alone can be argued against. I cannot, due to other responsibilities and due to the word limit on these forum posts present all the literature out there (although I have presented probably a dozen or so different studies throughout this forum). I suggest you just copy and paste this website into your browser http://www.public.iastate.edu/ ~vasser/pubs/04CA.pdf It is a review article on the research up to 2003. There has been more research done, but it has not yet been published. So go ahead and read that article. Then go and seek out the studies that they reference.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 9:09 AM
    Dubalo7
  • ShadowProphet

    As to the arousal thing, did the studies that show this look at the 'erotic' imagry in both games and make sure it was 'equal' in nature so as to not get a false positive? I doubt it. But you draw the link anyways. As for the hostile cognition, again you brandish the word agressive, yet provide no context to the word, much less a defiition to use. But yes I might agree that violent imagry could triger memories of violence. However I fail to see the difference between that and the stron association of smell to memories other than this being a visual cue vs a olfactory cue.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 9:03 AM
    ShadowProphet
  • Dubalo7

    Seriously, Mmetelus... I am not saying that playing a violent game causes people to kill. How many times do I have to repeat that. This is not what the research shows. The research shows that it increases the likelihood of aggressive responding. The video game does not cause the explosion alone, it is one factor that COULD cause the explosion. It's presence makes the person more LIKELY, it is not an ABSOLUTE cause. Nothing is an absolute cause. there are constantly forces working to ellicit and restrain our behavior. But it must be accepted that if we find something that causes an increase in the LIKELIHOOD of some negative behavior that we should inform people to be cautious about it.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:59 AM
    Dubalo7
  • ShadowProphet

    Yes I asked you for that, and you gave me a study that showed that a person, when properly conditioned, who plays a violent video game will have higher agressive tendancies. It doesn't show anything other than that. The fact that you're trying to pass it off as that is kinda silly. Why not do a study that takes music from violent video games, and plays it durring non violent video games and see that reaction. That would go to saying that its the violence in the game, not other factors, that causes the increased agression. As for the children studies. What were their home lives like? Were the children taught right from wrong? How much attention do the parents pay to these children? All major factors in there that I'm sure were ignored in those studdies as well...

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:55 AM
    ShadowProphet
  • Dubalo7

    Sure other factors could have played a role. If you want to talk about biological. When people play violent games, there is more physiological arousal than when they play a comprable nonviolent game. Now the fact that we have increased arousal does not deny that the games themselves don't cause aggression. This just gives us a mediator. Something that accounts for the relationship between the factors. It does not make the effect of the first cause less relevant. It just means that the first cause (playing the game) increases the second cause (physiological arousal) which makes the outcome (aggression) more likely. Another mediator is hostile cognition (or the availability of aggressive thoughts in memory). These are mediators, the are causes that are caused by the the violent game itself.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:51 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Shadowprophet -- all you asked me for was to show that it wasn't the music/controls/something else that was causing the aggressive behavior. Having all people play one game under different rules shows that the music/controls/something else was not causing the aggressive behavior. This is why I referenced this study.

    As far as the adrenaline argument. IF the adrenaline is caused by the aggressive game, then isn't the aggressive game causing the behavior. I have already spoken to this. Additionally, in the correlational studies we see that children that play violent games at home are more likely to act aggressively in the school. So does the adrenaline keep going after playing the aggressive game. Also, how can adrenaline increase hostile cognitions?

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:42 AM
    Dubalo7
  • ShadowProphet

    You're quick to throw the blame at video games for the increased agression, without lookging at a myriad of other factors, much less the biological response that trigers it. Yet you've come here, and made a myriad of claims under the guise of scientific studies 'proving' these things. Studies i'm sure did not look at other reasons, and indeed atleast one study that conditioned people to be more agressive to prove that video games lead to increased agression.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:41 AM
    ShadowProphet
  • ShadowProphet

    Oh, to note because I doubt that its clear. I am not against the idea that violet video games could indeed cause a increase of agression. However, I am against these studies being thrown about with little context, and very little actual fact. Biologicaly it could just be due to the release of adrenaline into the system. But if that is indeed the case, i have no way of knowing or being able to study said phenomenom myself, then one could say baseball games and getting into the game could lead to more violence. And thats the problem with these studies.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:38 AM
    ShadowProphet
  • ShadowProphet

    Ok so, you have proved that, rewarding someone for taking agressive actions, increases agressive actions. Imagine that. I honestly fail to dee how that proves that violet video games increase agressive behavior. And you didn't bother adressing the issue that it could possibly be something other than the violence in the video game that is causing the upswing of agressive behavior. Nor did you manage to define 'agressive behavior'. So again I reject your findings that video games do infact increase agression, and increase violence.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:25 AM
    ShadowProphet
  • Dubalo7

    A warning however. Although we may be able to find that certain aspects of game play reduce aggressive tendencies, it is unlikely that all effects will be wiped away. Rather it is more likely that they will simply reduce these tendencies. Caution will always need to be excersized when people are exposed to violent media. But there should never be prohibition.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:21 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Now what is the psychological community currently doing on this issue. Well some people, like myself, are running studies to identify factors within games that could reduce the amount of aggression post gameplay. We don't really want to work against the videogame industry, it is a losing battle. They have more money, as well as the bill of rights, on their side. We want to work with the video game industry to advise them what aspects of games should/should not be present. It is up to them wether they want to listen or not.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:18 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Jack thompson is wrong to sue the video game companies. His argument holds little water. Videogames aren't intended train people to use guns (although they can be used for this purpose). Many other factors will play into whether a person will become violent. Although violent games make them more likely to act aggressively, the video game company do self-mandate who should be playing these games. Yet to deny the causal link between violent games and aggressive behavior would leave them accountable. So although they should not be sued, they should feel guilty if they do not own up to this fact. If they feel the research is wrong, they should fund research to show it. Not use faulty arguments (like the ones that Sessler and other video game pundits use) to counter the claims of the research.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:15 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    The simple fact is that violent video game play is associated with an increase in aggressive behavior. This does not imply however, that violent video games are the only source of aggressive behavior. Nevertheless, when you compare someone who plays violent games to someone who doesn't (all else being equal) the person who plays the violent game has an increased likelihood of acting with aggression and if aggression is enacted, the violent game player will be more aggressive/violent. This is what the research shows. So sure, the violent crime rate has been going down since 1994. This is not however because people are playing more violent games. It is likely due to other factors (including the foundation of the ESRB in 1993). Information is all that we provide. We do not provide mandates. You can do what you will with violent games. Hell, I still play violent games. Nevertheless, people (not just parents) need to be informed of the evidence if it is there.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:10 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    ShadowProphet -- Why isn't there more crime elsewhere? Well it could be due to thousands of other reasons. I never said that violent games were the only cause of aggression. It is one factor however. As far as ruling out those other factors, we can look to the research and show that they are ruled out. Nicholas Carnagey performed a study in which everyone played the exact same game, Carmageddon. He just changed the rules across conditions. 1/3 of participants were rewarded for hitting pedestrians, 1/3 were punished for hitting pedestrians and the ohter 1/3 received no instruction. Those that were in the reward condition hit more pedestrians and were more aggressive on a post game aggression measure. THey also had increased hostile cognition. Even so, regardless of whether these other factors play a role or not, are they not present in the violent games?

    Posted: August 16, 2006 8:03 AM
    Dubalo7
  • ShadowProphet

    Now more to the point. If these 'studdies' are indeed correct (dispite my reservations for the moment we'll assume you're correct). Why is there not more crime elsewhere across the world? Why is there not more crime in say Japan? Or China? South Korea where people are more wired than they are in the US and the rest of the world?

    Oh and another thing. Can you scientificaly prove it was the violence in said video games that caused the 'increased agression' and not say, the music in them? And as someone pointed out before, can you prove the agression was not due to frustration at the controls? Or frustration at how well they were doing because of their skill at said game and the difficulty they were playing it at? or the difficulty of the game in general? I doubt it, but you'll just blame the violence in the game as the cause without looking at those other factors anyways...

    Posted: August 16, 2006 7:44 AM
    ShadowProphet
  • ShadowProphet

    Now more to the point. If these 'studdies' are indeed correct (dispite my reservations for the moment we'll assume you're correct). Why is there not more crime elsewhere across the world? Why is there not more crime in say Japan? Or China? South Korea where people are more wired than they are in the US and the rest of the world?

    Oh and another thing. Can you scientificaly prove it was the violence in said video games that caused the 'increased agression' and not say, the music in them? And as someone pointed out before, can you prove the agression was not due to frustration at the controls? Or frustration at how well they were doing because of their skill at said game and the difficulty they were playing it at? or the difficulty of the game in general? I doubt it, but you'll just blame the violence in the game as the cause without looking at those other factors anyways...

    Posted: August 16, 2006 7:40 AM
    ShadowProphet
  • ShadowProphet

    I've read most of your comments here Dubalo7, and in general I find you like to mention studies, but you don't provide context. You like talking about a study that uses college kids. Now, to start off with College aged kids are already under plenty of stress, which could indeed lead to increased agression or the increased propensity for agression. Now also i've yet to see you define agression (you may have and i missed it). Agression has a broad deffinition and could be anything really from the timid guy asking a girl out on a date, to someone beating the snot out of someone else. But without the context of what they measured as agression, and what 'agressive behavior' is I refuse to take your arguments at face value.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 7:29 AM
    ShadowProphet
  • Dubalo7

    They explain the underlying processes of the effect, but don't wipe away the original effect.

    As far as well adjusted and level headed adults. Many of the studies on video game violence have been run with college students. Now these are considered adults, but still their aggression increases after playing violent games. As far as a criminal committing a criminal act regardless of playing violent games. Playing a violent game, makes them more likely to do so. The presence is not absolutely necessary, but it increases the likelihood. Do you not understand logic? Why would the presence of other causes completely nullify the effects of one cause. Each thing that causes aggression, when present, makes that aggressive act more likely

    Posted: August 16, 2006 7:12 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Wow... I don't understand why you all think that Sessler is such a god. He may have done his research, but he didn't truly understand the research that he talked about. He presented the standard fare of BS that is spouted by a violent videogame advocate everytime you question them.

    MMetelus -- I don't get it, why would something that results from the playing of the violent game, take all blame away from the violent game. Again, the violent game is always pitted against other games. IN some studies the same game is pitted against itself but with different degrees of violence in the game. They do find increased arousal, but it is not just because of the fast pace of the game. THey also find increased hostile cognitions. These are what we call mediators.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 7:05 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Broken5hift

    if Adam sessler were a woman id have sex with him after this debate. Awsome job of putting captain tighty whitties in his place.
    -Broken

    Posted: August 16, 2006 7:03 AM
    Broken5hift
  • J_Tepes

    First, let me say that I don't think anyone is ever going to be able to convince Jack Thompson that he is wrong about ANYTHING. Having said that, I think it is important that these politicians should be made to understand that video games aren't exclusively a medium for children. They haven't been since their inception. We had to watch this same song and dance in the 90's when the politicians attacked games like Doom and Mortal Kombat. The same people that were playing those games then are, for the most part, well adjusted and level headed adults, now. Statistically speaking, you are ALWAYS going to have violent individuals who just happen to also be gamers. The medium is too widespread for there not to be. Violence, being an inseparable part of the human psyche like it is, has and will be ever present in human history. A person who is given to violent or criminal acts will be so, regardless of whether or not he plays violent video games, or games of any kind, for that matter.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 6:57 AM
    J_Tepes
  • Dantetheblack

    (continued from my previous post)
    People defending Video Games have to stop trying to beat them in our court.We have to get away from G4,The internet,blogs,etc. and start playing their game.We need to find someone who we can get to go on Fox News,CNN,etc. and to present a well educated defense with a PLETHORA of counter-evidence.By the poll you saw, you can see that We already have the G4 audience convinced. Now its the higher ups and politicans who now need to be convinced... We need to go in there with Banners that say "Video Games are not just for Children anymore" and convince the parents that they should look and read about the games they are buying for their kids.
    Well. I think that Adam did touch on some good points but all in all it wasnt that sucssesful. Im out .

    Posted: August 16, 2006 4:19 AM
    Dantetheblack
  • Dantetheblack

    Sadly, I dissagree with most of your opinions.The debate was Useless. It was way too short to get any actual point across.Both sides where not able to present a point.And from the normal persons perspective (one who would not know any information on eaither side)Adam comes across as overly agressive and rude. Remember no-matter how bad of one he is, Jack is a politican, he knows how to play the game and seem resonable about his BS.Now G4 didnt help the situation, presenting the poll at the start seemed like easy fodder for Jacko to start his crap.The host seemed to be very biased, which didnt help Adam or Kevin prove their point.

    Posted: August 16, 2006 4:16 AM
    Dantetheblack
  • jbot_3000

    Why did Jack the jackass tell Adam that he didnt do his research? Of course Adam did his research. Adam knows a hell of alot more than Jack Thompson ever hoped to.

    Posted: August 15, 2006 11:14 PM
    jbot_3000
  • Chickenmasterr

    If you watch the thing, you can see Kevin P. trying to keep the thing unbiased. I think it just seems biased because Jack Thompson is a moron, who tried to use the same bullshit points he always does. He went in, expecting Adam to be a moron, and not having any ammunition to fire back with. As it turns out, Adam was very intelligent and prepared, and easily won the debate. Very easily.


    I don’t think it was biased, I just think Jack got tromped so bad that it seemed that way.

    Posted: August 15, 2006 10:37 PM
    Chickenmasterr
  • Grimlyn

    Deathmatch Adam vs. Jack lol (My money is on Adam)

    Posted: August 15, 2006 6:21 PM
    Grimlyn
  • Oblivion_Master

    srry i meant cant in it. i had to type this fast. :(

    Posted: August 15, 2006 6:17 PM
    Oblivion_Master
  • Oblivion_Master

    srry i meant cant in it. i had to type this fast. :(

    Posted: August 15, 2006 6:15 PM
    Oblivion_Master
  • Oblivion_Master

    This really sucks. Jack really shouldn't judge by first impressions. I mean they are screenshots. It might even be only tests and might not even be in the game. Besides don't you think that games might even help us someday. Like it might prevent kids from gangs if they have something to keep them busy. Also if we can play games that are violent that might increase the violence for 2 reasons.
    1. People can blow off steam in a virtual world like in GTA with.
    2.More people causing trouble with more free time on. (Ps I just say what on my mind.)

    Posted: August 15, 2006 6:13 PM
    Oblivion_Master
  • ulfhednar

    Dubalo7 Point taken!
    I would like to know if these studies are posted anywhere on the internet,so that I could read them and judge for myself.

    Posted: August 15, 2006 5:08 PM
    ulfhednar
  • Dubalo7

    Oh and Ulfhednar, your post is what we call a strawman or ad hominen argument. It doesn't do a very good job of refuting someone elses claim. Additionally, when it is poorly constructed and based on a stereotype of a person, it is even less constructive.

    Posted: August 15, 2006 4:40 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Ulfhednar -- Yes... because this is what psychologists do. First off, the people conducting htis research are social psychologists. WE have very little to do with abnormal psychology (where you may see some drug treatment programs) and since we don't have a medical degree, we can't actually prescribe drugs. You're thinking of psychiatrists. Social psychologists perform basic research on "normal" human behavior. When we get a finding we inform the public. As I've stated before, I don't believe video games should be banned. I do however, feel that the research needs to be acknowledged by the media and by the video game companies. Having knowledge on a topic is always better than ignorance.

    Again -- social psychologists. No drugs. We perform basic research, not applied so we aren't actively trying to change a person's behavior. We just inform them of the research and let them make their own decisions.

    Posted: August 15, 2006 4:36 PM
    Dubalo7
  • ulfhednar

    Here's an idea.Let's put everybody on over the counter medications,so they won't have aggressive tendencies anymore.So all the drug companies will make money instead of video game developers.Let's live in a world where everyone holds hands and sings good christian songs,Let's suppress every natural emotion except the ones deemed o.k. by psychologists so they can justify their reason to exist in the first place.Trying to modify peoples behaviour and emotions can be just as dangerous to society and humanity in the long run.It's just that nobody conducted that study yet!

    Posted: August 15, 2006 4:14 PM
    ulfhednar
  • ulfhednar

    Here's an idea.Let's put everybody on over the counter medications,so they won't have aggressive tendencies anymore.So all the drug companies will make money instead of video game developers.Let's live in a world where everyone holds hands and sings good christian songs,Let's suppress every natural emotion except the ones deemed o.k. by psychologists so they can justify their reason to exist in the first place.Trying to modify peoples behaviour and emotions can be just as dangerous to society and humanity in the long run.It's just that nobody conducted that study yet!

    Posted: August 15, 2006 4:07 PM
    ulfhednar
  • Nahara

    Jack Thompson, ha ha charade you are.

    Posted: August 15, 2006 3:57 PM
    Nahara
  • ult1matex64

    imagine if Jack Thompson came president of the Unite States, video games would be banned which would make every gamer in USA p*ssed and there would probaly be a big protest be it games developers and gamers.

    But yeah Adam Sessler should defend videos games, he's the man, oh and yeah I hate Jack Thompson period!.

    Posted: August 15, 2006 11:37 AM
    ult1matex64
  • Dubalo7

    mmetelus -- I'm not sure what you're saying here. I guess your saying that aggression doesn't spur from nothing (e.g. you won't hit someone unless someone else hits you). So why did the person hit you in the first place? The nature of aggression is quite ambiguous. Most fights and arguments start from a misinterpretation of some ambiguously aggressive act. This is well accepted in the literature. Nevertheless, what is most compelling about the violent video game literature is that although most of our studies with aggression require some type of provocation to elicit aggression, the studies done on violent video games generally don't require you to provoke the subject. We find unprovoked aggression. Additionally we find that after playing a VVG people are more likely to interpret these ambiguous acts as aggressive acts. So VVG play cause us to be more likely to interpret something as aggressive, to respond with aggression, and the aggression we see is amplified.

    Posted: August 15, 2006 9:30 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Also, I am not being snobby. I am trying to inform you of the research.

    As far as sessler doing a great job and just not having enough time to defend his position. Well that is your opinion. I feel that he did a terrible job. He misrepresented the actual research and turned to findings that really had no relevance on this issue. Jack Thompson did no better. He overstated what the research shows. The answer does not lie in whether thompson or sessler was right, it lies more in the middle ground. Violent games are not the ultimate cause of school shootings (as Mr. Thompson would like to claim), but it is preposterous for Sessler to make claims that violent games will have no effect on real world violence (as the research clearly shows that it does).

    Posted: August 15, 2006 8:55 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    As far as me being a conspiracy theorist suggesting that the poll on this site is false. I never said that. I said it was biased. If you ask a thousand people who play violent games if they think it effects their behavior, they'll tell you "No" most of the time. If you ask a thousand big tobacco lobbyists if they believe smoking causes cancer, they'll tell you "No" most of the time. I'm just saying that the poll on here is not a credible poll. Not that G4 altered the results. Even though their Thompson bashing before the show may have urged some to change their vote, I doubt the result would have been any different.

    Posted: August 15, 2006 8:49 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Professoroki -- Sure it is a violent crime if it is reported (many acts of aggression are never reported). But again my point is that although the violent crime rate is decreasing does not mean we should not be concerned with the effects of violent games. Doing so would be the same as saying, "Oh, the violent crime rate is dropping. I shouldn't be concerned that my husband just bought a gun" (BTW--owning a gun makes you 3 times more likely to be killed with a gun).

    Again also to all the people who keep harping on the "severely distorted people". Why are they your only concern? Aggression is aggression whether it takes the form of shooting someone, or a verbal shouting match. Didn't your mothers teach you that violence does not resolve anything? This is what children and adults learn when they play violent games.

    Posted: August 15, 2006 8:47 AM
    Dubalo7
  • strangeAce

    That was great, adam kicks a** when it comes to somthing related to videogames.

    Posted: August 15, 2006 7:36 AM
    strangeAce
  • gronc

    Just another attorney looking for a lot of attention.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 9:55 PM
    gronc
  • Nightfyres

    Lol, way to go Adam. To bad it wasn't longer debate, but with Jack it just won't do any good. He's to bull headed to see the truth.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 9:07 PM
    Nightfyres
  • stunya

    jack tompson is a f ing dork seriously that guy doesnt want a game released about bullying because im sure he was a victim of being bullied.hes just being a little bi7ch.i dont understand why he has to waiste his time and effort on something as useless to sociaty such as video games.not to say i dont love video games but at the same time wtf rele cares that much about video games other tyhan video game fans.he could be putting his collage educated brain to much better use than what he is using it for.try to ban smoking a real killer in my eyes.there are tons of people who are not as fortunate as he to be collage educated and he is waisteing his knowlage on a subject that means nothing to anyone.....and another thing think about this wtf do u think a girl would say to u if u went up to her at a bar and explaned ur profession.i bet shed say WOW u are a f ing loser or something to that extent.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 6:58 PM
    stunya
  • Tristen5515

    If you awnt to see some thing wierd about Jack Thompson look at this letter VG cats got from him http://www.vgcats.com/jack.php

    Posted: August 14, 2006 6:06 PM
    Tristen5515
  • Luna_Saisho

    At this point, there's too much for me to read through, but my two cents real quick-like:

    Thompson is not, and never has been, qualified to be campaigning against gaming. He really needs to understand gaming before trying to change the entire's country's viewpoint.

    More time was needed. Adam did great, but obviously tried as hard as he could to get as much into this short time as possible. A full hour, or even half hour, show is needed.

    Good job, Adam! Too bad Thompson is too blind to acknowlege what you had to say.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 4:55 PM
    Luna_Saisho
  • red255

    I am conserned about Dubalo7's logic and conspiracy mental functions. Is he saying G4 altered the poll results? I suppose they have reason to, but from what I can tell a number between 85-95% of the people here seems reasonable assumption... Regardless, personally my acts of aggression I do not blame on violent media. I have sometimes yelled at a game when, I felt the games responsiveness was lacking, which is why I feel the shoddy controls of the inital study was an issue. The snobby response of Dubalo7's refusal to even accept it as a possibility, when to me it seemed the more obvious answer was disturbing. But then I haven't wasted 12 years of my life trying to prove shit don't stink.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 3:25 PM
    red255
  • ProfessorOhki

    Oh, and Dubalo7... last time I checked fist fights were violent crimes. They're called 'battery,' and 'assault.' So, unless it's legally found to be self-defence... I'd also like to point out that Thompson's wording has always been 'they trained on doom.' Training implies pre-meditation which would indicate they aready intended to carry out their acts. So, he's either grasping for straws or just doesn't hear himself talking. I'm surprised he doesn't pull out the incident where the guy tried to escape police custody then claimed GTA 'gave him the idea' of escaping.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 2:29 PM
    ProfessorOhki
  • ProfessorOhki

    Someone who drives in a congested city for 1 hour will be more likely to commit an act of agression then a person who drives on an open country road for 1 hour. Based on this fact, I humbly suggest we protect our children from the dangers of traffic lights. They are obviously the cause of all our society's problems.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 2:22 PM
    ProfessorOhki
  • Nerdulla

    You know what else could have caused the decrease in the violent crime rate, the obesity epidemic. Kids are spending to much time playing games and getting fat rather than exercising. They are too fat to hurt anyone else except for those they accidentally sit on.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 2:00 PM
    Nerdulla
  • Dubalo7

    **Consequences** not concerns

    Posted: August 14, 2006 1:47 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    So something that could be resolved by just considering the fact that you're in a crowded bar and pitchers are a perilous thing to be carrying in this situation, we now have a bar fight. Now this could just remain at this level and you wake up with a black eye. But consider when this gets out of hand. An aggressive situation can quickly escalate. Fist fighting can quickly turn to a "violent crime" if there is a weapon present. The simple fact that violent games (along with many other factors) can increase the likelihood that I or you or anyone else, will get hurt is a concern. So regulation (like the ESRB does) is necessary. Informing the public about the dangers of playing violent video games (which AOTS doesn't) is necessary. It is best to err on the side of caution. Not doing so could have drastic concerns

    Posted: August 14, 2006 1:45 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    red255 -- the one study that i cited was one out of many that have been done since. the point I was trying to make with all the things that happened in 1994 was to show that just because a video game was introduced in a certain year, and the violent crime rate decreases thereafter, does not mean that the game caused the decrease in the violent crime rate. Anything that happened in 1994 (including the introduction of the ESRB) could have reduced the violent crime rate. Additionally, even if the violent crime rate is decreasing, there is still reason for concern. The studies are not showing increases in violent crime. They are showing increases in normal everyday aggression. So we may not need to be as concerned today, as we were in 1994 about being shot. But we do need to be concerned that if we say, accidentally spill beer on someone, they will respond more aggressively if they play violent VGs.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 1:42 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    I'm sure if you could do it, they would welcome you with open arms and throw millions at you. So with all those millions out there to be grabbed up, why do professors continue to live on their pittance salary (and trust me, it's not a good salary considering how much schooling is required to get to that level) when they can make millions by showing that violent games don't cause aggressive behavior? Trust me, i'm sure many have tried (as I've said I'm even trying right now). But just as many have failed.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 1:37 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    I'm sure if you could do it, they would welcome you with open arms and throw millions at you. So with all those millions out there to be grabbed up, why do professors continue to live on their pittance salary (and trust me, it's not a good salary considering how much schooling is required to get to that level) when they can make millions by showing that violent games don't cause aggressive behavior? Trust me, i'm sure many have tried (as I've said I'm even trying right now). But just as many have failed.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 1:31 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    red255 -- what I mean by biased are people that get money from the videogame industry. This includes the hosts/producers/errand boys of G4 television. This includes anyone in the videogame industry. This means anyone that gets money off of anti-videogame suits (including Jack Thompson). People who want to continue to play violent video games are also biased. You have a motivation to not believe the research. Some avoid it at all costs. Other make flimsy arguments to deny it. Who is not biased? Well, no one is free from bias. But the ones who are free from it the most are those that perform research at universities, who would receive the same amount of money regardless of the findings of their study. Actually, if you think about it. If you were to publish a study finding the opposite results and it was actually convincing, you could make a hell of a lot of money through private grants provided by the videogame industry.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 1:28 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    You know what I just looked up? This is hilarious. I think you'll all find it very informing. So around the time that the violent crime rate began to decrease, you know what else came into being? Well it was the ESRB. Just one more factor that could have decreased the violent crime rate. If you don't know, this is the videogame industry's self-regulated rating system. So the very thing that was put into place to restrict access to violent games by young children also occured at the same time that the violent crime rate dropped. So by the logic of the data that many of you continue to cite, restricting access to violent videogames could have also played a role in reducing violent crime rates.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 1:02 PM
    Dubalo7
  • red255

    oh and by biased people do you mean people who know videogames? I call that INFORMED not biased. If information makes people biased, sure I'm biased.

    But I don't agree that for the simple sake of unbiased-ness uninformed people should have any say.

    And for all your commenting... could you say something true?

    Posted: August 14, 2006 1:01 PM
    red255
  • Dubalo7

    So all other things being equal, the person who plays the violent videogames is more likely to inflict more harm on another person. So even though there are other risk factors in play, when these are held constant across individuals, the person who plays a violent game is more likely to respond with aggression. So who would you rather face in a bar fight? Jim who plays katamari Damacy or the Jim who plays GTA? Both could be likely to grab a weapon and harm you, but GTA Jim is much more likely.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 12:58 PM
    Dubalo7
  • red255

    I'm confused what the hell does tonya harding have to do with the price of tea in china?

    You seem to talk alot without saying anything.

    I could do a similiar study to the ones your guy did and 'PROVE' women are stronger than men. the way the experiment was setup, it looked like his intent was to find violent video games cause aggression. And not find the truth.

    Most likely it was the shrink's pressence that made EVERYONE more aggression and the non-violent games had a calming effect.... That and since it was obvious he WANTED this result he probably had biased asking his questions.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 12:49 PM
    red255
  • Dubalo7

    So all other things being equal, the person who plays the violent videogames is more likely to inflict more harm on another person. So even though there are other risk factors in play, when these are held constant across individuals, the person who plays a violent game is more likely to respond with aggression. So who would you rather face in a bar fight? Jim who plays katamari Damacy or the Jim who plays GTA? Both could be likely to grab a weapon and harm you, but GTA Jim is much more likely.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 12:40 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Again, the report that you are citing is discussing violent crime. What the research is discussing is aggressive behavior. Now aggressive behavior does not imply a crime, but a violent crime requires aggressive behavior. Violent games are not the only cause of violent crimes. NEvertheless, playing violent games increases your likelihood to act with aggression. So when considering children on the school yard, the kid who plays violent games will be more likely to push a kid if called a name. But consider the young adult in a bar. There are a lot of factors at work here (alcohol is a perfect example). Now considering everyone is drunk and all other things being equal beside the playing of violent games. Lets say a small disagreement begins. Jim, tripped and spilt beer on rob. Now if rob plays violent games, he is more likely to act aggressively. This could be a simple shove, or a punch, or it could be something more dramatic (e.g. smashing of a bottle to make a weapon).

    Posted: August 14, 2006 12:38 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Any one of these things could be the cause of the drop in the violent crime rate, just as easily as the release of the PS1 (not GTA as so many have claimed, that came out in 1997, 3 years after the decline began). Now what probably caused the decline. Well for one thing President Clinton was now in office and was calling for increased gun control laws. Other legislation is soon put into place to reduce access of the american public to assault rifles and guns. Events like columbine (and their predecessors) spur schools to begin actively trying to reduce violence in the schools. Of course, we can't say that this was the only factor. But they are more likely factors than the release of a videogame system.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 12:26 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Lets consider what else happened in 1994.

    Tonya Harding's ex-husband smashes Nancy Kerrigan's leg with a metal pipe in an attempt to win the gold medal. Lorena Bobbit was found not-guilty by reason of insanity for cutting off the penis of her husband. The dallas Cowboys hand the buffalo bills their fourth consective super bowl loss. Schindler's list wins 7 oscars. Kurt Cobain commits suicide (although some still speculate that his wife Courtney love killed him). The chunnel opens now making it easier for Brittains and parisians to travel accross the english channel.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 12:23 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    So what about the youth crime rate. It dropped right? Well yeah. But for those age 18-24 (those targeted by games like GTA) the violent crime rate has actually leveled off in recent years and is still almost triple that of people younger and older. Still this again is the violent crime rate. These statistics do not include other forms of aggression. Also, lets consider the least convincing factor. So the graph shows that the violent crime rate has decreased since 1994. This is the year that the PS1 came out. So obvioulsy, the PS1 is the factor here. Well, actually no

    Posted: August 14, 2006 12:17 PM
    Dubalo7
  • superhobobob

    Adam was being completly correct the whole time. i accutally did research on wat adam said and he was right. also, if Jack hates the game, then dont buy it. Jack was just mad cuz adam was proving him wrong and if they had more time, i think adam would've left Jack speechless. GO ADAM!!!!

    Posted: August 14, 2006 12:14 PM
    superhobobob
  • Dubalo7

    So the report that most of you seem to be talking about appears on gamerevolution.com (definitely unbiased) and is entitled, "the truth about violent youth and video games". The article starts out saying that the relationship is a lie fabricated by the media. Well if you look at the Bushman and Anderson (media violence and the american public)study I posted earlier, you will see that in fact the media under-reports the effects shown in the research.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 12:14 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Seriously, how many more times will people try to use that argument against me? "Oh, Dubalo7! Just look at the violent crime rate since GTA was released" It's always so funny that these statements come in the same message that "reminds me" that correlation does not imply causation. Quick reminder to you, the study you are citing is correlational. In addition, it is the worst kind of correlation as the hypothesis was developed post hoc and it only compares a point in time with nationally reported statistics. The research on the other side of the argument however has hypothesis that were generated a priori and has additional controls to rule out other factors. Beyond this it has experimental data to back it up. trust me, I know all about causation and what we can infer from findings. I teach that at the beginning of every semester. I pound it into the minds of hundreds of social psychology students each year. Yet some how, I guess it just eluded me.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 12:06 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Benschrascha --As far as your cited research, that shows that ever since the release of GTA violent crime has decreased. You knwo what we call that? Thats a correlational study. You can't argue against correlational research showing the Violent VG are related to increases in aggression by stating another correlational relationship. Any other thing that happened in the time surrounding the release of GTA could also account for that decrease. At least in the correlational research that shows that supports my claim, this was part of a study (not just a comparison of a timepoint and national statistics) and the study emplored statistical methods to control for other factors. Don't try to refute good research with bad research.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 11:54 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Benschrascha -- Again, yes correlation does not equal causation. That only holds for correlational research. I again point you to the experimental research. Experimental research controls for all other factors except for the IV that you manipulate. Experimental research can therefore show causation. This has been done. Numerous times. As far as not ellucidating the aggression I am talking about I have said many times that I am not talking about killing someone. I am talking about everyday aggression. If you think this aggression is trivial, I refer you to the article that Iposted on the matter. Don't just read one of my posts and make an argument based on that.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 11:51 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Benschrascha

    Dubalo7 there is a gaping flaw in your "studies" specifically that correlation DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION (honestly, it's one of the first rules there is a correlation between bedwetting and serial killers but no one is stupid enough to believe bedwetting turns someone into a serial killer. To further illuminate my point you don't even give the examples of aggression so your statement is, at best, broad since everything from being male to watching pornography increases aggression and to top it all off the paradigm of violent videogames causing violence flies in the face of observed reality- ever since the release of the original GTA violent crimes committed by youth have dropped considerably, this is arguably the least violent generation in the history of America and this is from federal sources not some hokey chart created by a game review site. Jack Thompson is merely using the fear of the ignorant to get more money, power, prestige than a hack like himself deserves

    Posted: August 14, 2006 11:43 AM
    Benschrascha
  • Dubalo7

    I am not a pundit nor am I a lobbyist. I am a responsible researcher. I read the research to come to an informed decision. As far as 91% of the people thinking I'm B.S, it's actually 93.5%. What a bevy of insight we get from online polls. Do you think they could be a little biased? The general consensus on this website is to be expected when you consider the people who populate this page. They are people who enjoy violent games and enjoy G4 (both things that I regularly enjoy). What reason would they have to disagree with messiah sessler? I just want to present an informed position. If you want to put yourself in my place, why don't you come to our next conference? I don't think you'll stand up as well as I have. your conjecture and speculation from an uniformed perspective based on a limited reading of the research, although fine in an online forum, would not bode well at a scholarly conference.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 11:42 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Should the videogame companies and the popular media own up to the research showing a causal link between violent games and aggression? yes. They continue to understate the research. This is where parents get their information from. Even with the ESRB, if the parents learn that there is nothing to be concerned about, they will be more likely to buy their children violent games. The causal link has been shown and remains in the current research.

    Call me what you will, but I am decidedly more toward the middle than most people in this debate. In fact I am currently doing research to identify possible factors within Violeng VGs that may reduce aggression after playing. I do not have conclusive data on this point and have therefore not brought it up.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 10:57 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Additionally, I think you misinterpret my perspective on the issue. I made this clear earlier, but haven't done it recently because of the attacks that I have received. But anywho, here is my position.

    Do violent games cause an increase in aggression? Yes, the research supports a causal link.

    Did violent games cause school shootings? Well, no. There were many other factors.

    Should the videogame companies be held accountable? No. this is preposterous and yes, Jack Thompson does make eroneous errors in his arguments.

    Should we still be concerned? Yes. Children (and adults) are learning to use violence to resolve conflicts. Just look at the posts of all the people who are arguing against my position. Most resort to violence rather than a debate of the issue.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 10:53 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    So seemingly, this study rules out the control effects that you speak of. Additionally, football is a very aggressive game in itself. One would think that if the degree of the violence in the games played no role, then we should see similar effects from both games. Yet, we see a significant increase in aggression after playing blitz.

    As far as 91% of the people here thinking I'm full of B.S. I'm fine with that. This is a biased sample after all. One question surveys asked on webpages after all are very definitive sources of research. I'm just presenting you all with the actual findings. Those findings that were not actually discussed during the debate.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 10:49 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Again, that's only one of the studies. At the recent meeting of the society for personality and social psychology there were several posters on this topic. Since it usually takes up to 4 years from the beginning of a study to final publication, conferences are where to get the most recent research on the topic. Of the studies on the topic there was one in particular done by Carnegy that looked at the competition hypothesis. The competition hypothesis was a criticism of early research on this topic suggesting that the effect sprouted from the competitive nature of the game not the violence. In the study he pitted madden football vs. NFL Blitz (vs. control games). Madden is your standard football game. Blitz is also a football game, but is more violent than madden. Both were played on the same system. So what were the findings? well, those that played blitz were more aggressive.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 10:45 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    I didn't call you 5 years old. I was refering to the age of the study. See what I was talking about with violent game players interpreting ambiguous actions as hostile.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 10:38 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    You know what seems even more preposterous than violent games causing aggressive behavior. The simple notion that different control schemes could cause aggressive behavior. Sure, maybe its a flaw with the experimental research (but as I have stated the newer studies use more recent games). But remember that there is also the correlational and longitudinal research that backs it up as well.

    It's amazing that you can say poor control settings could cause aggression, but violent games can't cause aggression. Additionally, even if these are dated games, think about the increased reality of the new games. The violence and experience is so much more real now than in the games from this one study.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 10:26 AM
    Dubalo7
  • red255

    No Dubalo7, I've played some of the games, I know the difference.

    How are you sure it is not from the controls of the video game? Please don't call me 5-years old, it only serves to make me think you have your head up your ass and look down at everyone that dissagrees with your bullshit research.

    Looking down one's nose attempting to take the moral high ground when your study is crap, is really childish.

    Myst can be played with one-hand in your sleep extremly low stress game.

    Whereas the action video games cannot.

    But that is why 91% of the people here think you are full of it.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 10:21 AM
    red255
  • Dubalo7

    You know what seems even more preposterous than violent games causing aggressive behavior. The simple notion that different control schemes could cause aggressive behavior. Sure, maybe its a flaw with the experimental research (but as I have stated the newer studies use more recent games). But remember that there is also the correlational and longitudinal research that backs it up as well.

    It's amazing that you can say poor control settings could cause aggression, but violent games can't cause aggression. Additionally, even if these are dated games, think about the increased reality of the new games. The violence and experience is so much more real now than in the games from this one study.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 10:18 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    yeah... great arguments against the studies guys. They are old if you think that 5 years is old. I just posted the most cited studies, there are many more that are more recent. The meta-analyses were posted because they take the accumulation of all of the research on the topic and generate an average correlation. And as far as controls, the more recent studies (which are currently in press) use more recent systems (e.g. PS2/xbox). And still even if the controls are a little wonky, you still see aggression after playing the violent games but not after playng a non-violent game, so it is not from the control of the game, but the content of the game.
    PS - we are not shrinks. We study normal human behavior with empirical methods

    Posted: August 14, 2006 10:05 AM
    Dubalo7
  • red255

    http://anderson.socialpsycholo gy.org/
    the one at the bottom cause it was dated :Eubanks, J., & Valentine, J. C. (2004).
    Read page 11/52 for the study decription.
    games were played on a Macintosh Computer except Street Fight which was a SNES game.
    Now I'll say 1.) Controls on a macintosh are pretty bad. what with the one button mouse and stuff. and Street fighter is a horribly unbalanced game.
    So the Violence in my experience stemmed from the poor controls experience in this instance, and NOT the content of the game.
    2. Myst and pinball and maybe the others in the non-violent game category Don't suffer the same problems with crappy mac mouse.
    Do I need to read more of the study? No that is enough to make the ENTIRE STUDY flawed.
    I mean I don't need a shrink to tell me If I lock a kid and a room and show him visions of himself dying over and over again because of crappy control scheme, damn straight they are gonna get violent. But it isn't the games violence causing it.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 9:16 AM
    red255
  • red255

    while it is probably more likely for me to find those studies in a nearby library... Those studies seem a bit... old. Well I'll go see if they exist in the library.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 8:41 AM
    red255
  • red255

    while it is probably more likely for me to find those studies in a nearby library... Those studies seem a bit... old. Well I'll go see if they exist in the library.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 8:35 AM
    red255
  • Dubalo7

    WSilva832 I think has made one of the most truthful and openminded posts on here. It is definitely true that both sides of this debate were incredibly biased. Sessler is not a well informed debater on the topic and is obviously biased by his association with the videogame industry. Thompson is a lobbyist and as it goes with most lawyers, he twists the data to make his claims. The third guy, well he seemed the most rational out of all of them (although he is also associated with the VG industry), but he wasn't given much time to speak. And yes, for a topic that seems so important to their viewing audience, 7 minutes is just not enough.

    Beyond this, the simple fact that AOTS put effort into derogating Thompson before the debate makes their notoriety plummet just that much more. They should stick to their terrible segments answering questions about sex and relationships rather than trying to debate an issue that has already been concluded from a scientific standpoint.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 8:09 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    WSilva832 I think has made one of the most truthful and openminded posts on here. It is definitely true that both sides of this debate were incredibly biased. Sessler is not a well informed debater on the topic and is obviously biased by his association with the videogame industry. Thompson is a lobbyist and as it goes with most lawyers, he twists the data to make his claims. The third guy, well he seemed the most rational out of all of them (although he is also associated with the VG industry), but he wasn't given much time to speak. And yes, for a topic that seems so important to their viewing audience, 7 minutes is just not enough.

    Beyond this, the simple fact that AOTS put effort into derogating Thompson before the debate makes their notoriety plummet just that much more. They should stick to their terrible segments answering questions about sex and relationships rather than trying to debate an issue that has already been concluded from a scientific standpoint.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 8:07 AM
    Dubalo7
  • WSilva832

    I'm amazed at how much hype this "debate" has generated. Kids arguing the same topic at a schoolyard playground could have made more grounds than this segment did. Jack Thompson has agreed to come onto your show and of course bringing with him his filthy, vile, repulsive entourage of lies and all you can give us is adam assclown sessler flailing his arms about like an idiot in an emotionally charged diatribe all the while ACTUALLY managing to make Jack Thompson appear to be a rational-minded person? Are you ****ing kidding me? Oh yeah and dont forget to allot a laughable 7 minutes to this "debate". We wouldn't want to cut into any more precious air-time of Kevin/Olivia akward forced chemistry moments that we all cant seem to get enough of.

    This has to be an all-time low for AOTS.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 7:42 AM
    WSilva832
  • Dubalo7

    Sorry for paraphrasing in my other posts, but the word limit of this forum does not allow full citation of articles.

    Beyond these articles, there are several independent articles by other researchers in other fields that find the same effect of violent video games on aggression. I'll leave it up to you to go and search these out. Just go to your local university library.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 7:35 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Finally, here is a nice paper that addresses all of your concerns about whether showing aggression in the lab is the same as showing aggression in the real world.

    Anderson, C.A., Bushman, C.J. (1997) External validity of "trivial" expeirments: The case of laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology 1(1), 19-41.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 7:32 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Bushman, B. J., ANderson, C. A. (2001) Media violence and the america public: Scientific fact vs media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56(6/7), 477-489.

    Here's a nice paper about how the catharsis hypothesis doesn't pan out and how media representation of it just makes it worse:
    Bushman, B.J., Baumeister, R.F., Stack, A.D. (1999). Catharsis, aggression, and persuasive influence: Self-fulfilling or self-defeating prophecies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 367-376.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 7:30 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    red255 - The research is conducted by Brad Bushman (Univ of Michigan) and Craig Anderson (Iowa State). They both have had their degrees for well over 25 years. They are the leaders in research on aggression. I myself am a graduate student in psychology working toward my PhD. I don't have a citation for the APA report, but here are a couple of citations for their articles:

    Bushman, B., Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent videogames and hostile expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1679-1686

    Anderson, C.A., Bushman, B. J. (2001) Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12(5), 353-359.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 7:25 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Gridsystem -- You state that the APA studies (lets not get confused here, they are not APA studies, it was a report put out by the APA on studies run by independent psychologists) looked only to aggression after the game. You suggest that it's just because they got excited playing the games that caused their aggression. But the research pits aggressive gaems against other games (which also amp up arousal). So it isn't just the playing of a game that causes the aggression, it's specifically playing a violent game that causes the aggression.

    So many of you are making claims to suggest the research is faulty based on your heresay experience with the studies or based on an individual study. I research aggression (I'm one of those nasty social psychologists that tries to answer questions about human behavior). I have read the literature on violent games and aggression. I used to stand firmly against it. But once you read a large proportion of the reports out there, you become convinced.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 7:07 AM
    Dubalo7
  • red255

    Dubalo7 kept quoting a scientific research results.... I kinda wanted to see the whole report. It has a feel of either being entirely made up or selectively ignoring facts that don't help their case. Names of the scientists involved in the study... how long they've had their licenses, other studies they have done. ETC.

    He talks and talks, I got tired of reading his paraphrasing, I REALLY wanted to see his credentials before actually checking his case.

    Cuz without that, it is 1. Only one study preformed by most likely biased individuals, who may simply be paid to come up with certain results and 2. Conflicts greatly with everything I have personally observed in REALITY. as well as what 91% of people polled here believe to conflict with REALITY.

    Which is mainly why I need to check the studies you were referring to, they seem like bald-face lies, but I can't check that without you know the actual study.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 7:03 AM
    red255
  • Dubalo7

    Scottzupek --

    It isn't just one study. There have been a multitude of studies run (well over 1oo) that have confirmed this effect. THey have used numerous different methods that show causality, and others that confirm that violent games cause real world aggression.

    As to those that keep on saying, "the games are not for kids!" it doesn't matter. The studies don't only show increased aggression in children. The studies were done with college students as well. Just because you are over 18 doesn't mean that we should not be concerned with your behavior any longer. If anything we should be more concerned. Someone over the age of 18 has a better chance of inflicting more damage than a 13 year old.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 6:58 AM
    Dubalo7
  • scottzupek

    Mr. Thompson Needs to understand that because 1 study(out of the 20 or so that have been done) comes up with what he wants to use as a debate, doesnt make it fact. If he were to do some TRUE research he would find out that majority of studies have found out just the opposite of what he was claiming or that there is not enough conclusive evidence. As for Adam S. he let the emotions get the best of him, and when you are trying to debate something, thats an automatic "loss". Mark(if that was his name) from C|Net actually had the information and he gave his sources and a place to check them. Mr. Thompson is unfortunately wrong. If it does come down to a child mispercieving the game, its the PARENTS RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE HE DOESNT PLAY THEM. ITS THE PARENTS RESPONSIBILITY TO TEACH THE CHILD BETWEEN WHAT IS WRONG AND WHAT IS RIGHT. America keeps trying to find reason to blame their bad parenting on something else.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 6:52 AM
    scottzupek
  • likenew

    i was surfing the net while i had attack of the show on, i wasn't really listening..but what first struck me was when jack started talking about some kids in kentucky who killed some other kids...but it wasn't until he said "and they used DOOM to train with", it struck a cord. thats, just, unbelievable to even think thats plausible.

    video games don't cause violence, to say so is just moronic. violence is in human nature...there have been countless wars on this planet, i doubt ANY of them were started because of a video game.

    i hope they do a longer episode about this topic followed by a long debate, with the top intellects on both sides.

    Posted: August 14, 2006 6:30 AM
    likenew
  • chiodorritos

    I think games can cause violents, when tekken first came out all i wanted to do was get in karate matches with people because i thought it was cool, but so do movies. Matrix made me want to beat people up all cool like. If you take violent games away, movies will just fill in, because most games now have a very cinematic feel. These games are not aimed towards children, therefore if children gain access to violent games, then the parents should explain the infrastructure involving realism, and fantasy. ODOYLE RULESS

    Posted: August 14, 2006 12:20 AM
    chiodorritos
  • fattony4200

    hopefully this wont get deleted but w/e. jack tompson is an idiot. no logic at all. we need to start a militia to kill jack tompson

    Posted: August 13, 2006 10:44 PM
    fattony4200
  • fattony4200

    hopefully this wont get deleted but w/e. jack tompson is an idiot. no logic at all. we need to start a militia to kill jack tompson

    Posted: August 13, 2006 10:32 PM
    fattony4200
  • fattony4200

    hopefully this wont get deleted but w/e. jack tompson is an idiot. no logic at all. we need to start a militia to kill jack tompson

    Posted: August 13, 2006 10:19 PM
    fattony4200
  • ProfessorOhki

    Dubalo7, on the 2000 APA study. Specifically, the one that claims to link agressive behavior to violent video games (not the one that relies on people reporting their own behaviors.)

    "In the second study, 210 college students played either a violent (Wolfenstein 3D) or nonviolent video game (Myst). A short time later, the students who played the violent video game punished an opponent (received a noise blast with varying intensity) for a longer period of time than did students who had played the nonviolent video game."

    Ever played Myst? Myst is, in it's very nature RELAXING. There's huge leeway here as to the pace of the game. Take a fast moving puzzle game against a violent game where you point passivly and click every so often, I'd wager you the puzzle game (in this test) illicits a stronger 'agressive' responce. Hell, I bet if you played the soundtack from Myst you could show a decrease in agressivness.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 9:26 PM
    ProfessorOhki
  • mattandcch

    my comment was to long so i posted it on the forum

    Posted: August 13, 2006 3:34 PM
    mattandcch
  • kjraisch

    It's a theater style debate and more of a gamer community response than anything. Not that I didn't enjoy seeing Thompson's arguements cut at the root, but there wasn't much said to advance the debate any further along. Research in the field, IMO, is a moot point. EVERYONE responds to stimuli differently be it games, music, movies, or books. The kids involved in Columbine could have just as easily been using games and software as a method of release, and it was the human element that finally drove them over the edge. Or they could've been using GTA as a training program. No one knows. They can't speak for themselves. In the end it comes down to personal judgement and responsibility. That's where it starts. That's where it ends. Mainstream debate be damned.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 2:24 PM
    kjraisch
  • kjraisch

    It's a theater style debate and more of a gamer community response than anything. Not that I didn't enjoy seeing Thompson's arguements cut at the root, but there wasn't much said to advance the debate any further along. Research in the field, IMO, is a moot point. EVERYONE responds to stimuli differently be it games, music, movies, or books. The kids involved in Columbine could have just as easily been using games and software as a method of release, and it was the human element that finally drove them over the edge. Or they could've been using GTA as a training program. No one knows. They can't speak for themselves. In the end it comes down to personal judgement and responsibility. That's where it starts. That's where it ends. Mainstream debate be damned.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 2:15 PM
    kjraisch
  • kjraisch

    It's a theater style debate and more of a gamer community response than anything. Not that I didn't enjoy seeing Thompson's arguements cut at the root, but there wasn't much said to advance the debate any further along. Research in the field, IMO, is a moot point. EVERYONE responds to stimuli differently be it games, music, movies, or books. The kids involved in Columbine could have just as easily been using games and software as a method of release, and it was the human element that finally drove them over the edge. Or they could've been using GTA as a training program. No one knows. They can't speak for themselves. In the end it comes down to personal judgement and responsibility. That's where it starts. That's where it ends. Mainstream debate be damned.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 2:12 PM
    kjraisch
  • Undersea

    I'd hardly say Adam destroyed him. In this kind of debate, Adam comes off as insane- he's shouting. Jack Thompson stays calm.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 1:48 PM
    Undersea
  • Dubalo7

    Professor Ohki -- Regardless of the fact that correlation does not imply causation, the experimental research can show causation. And it does.

    As far as the operational definition of aggression, several different DVs have been used to give us good construct validity. Also, to find that aggression increases on these tasks after playing a violent but not a non-violent game suggests that it's not just playing the game that increases aggression. It is the violent game. Refer to my post about the competition hypothesis for the best example of this.

    You can keep denying the research, but it will still remain. Just because you want it to be so, doesn't mean it actually will be.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 1:12 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Vorin

    Blame our schools not the games. First off Video games give people the ability to blow off time easily. If violence in a game ever esatblished something serious the game isn't the problem. First off a person wouldn't kill just because they saw it in a game. Lets see it could be their own peers at schools or problems at home it could be many things but today people like Jack Thompson are only using video games as a scapegoat.

    Trying to escape the real problems of our society such as drugs, bullying, real world violence, etc. are the real reasons. If a video game did make someone kill then chances are there will be a mental problem with the kid or other real world influences working on him. (Depression, Some kind of phobia, etc.)

    This is plain ridiculous. But I guess people are too stupid to realize things like this. I mean if you blame video games then go ahead and blame media, books, and everything else.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 12:51 PM
    Vorin
  • silvenguardian

    Wow, how rude of Jackie boy here. Adam sat still and let him finish a sentence. Honestly though, anyone who blames video games for violence in people is just a fool. I've been playing games since I was 2 years old, for years probably at LEAST 6 hours a day, and I still play them. I'm a pacifist and I'm against violence, I actually break up fights when I see them. People are just looking for somewhere to put the blame instead of on the mental inadequicies of the individuals. I have to agree still that parents are to blame, in that they should know if their child is mature or stable enough to distinguish fantasy and reality. I also like the living environment debate that Adam brought up. Good job, Sessler. You make us proud.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 12:49 PM
    silvenguardian
  • ProfessorOhki

    As far as another earlier comment about the psychological studies, I'd be curious to see what the operational definition of 'agression' was. It seems to me that would be a difficult trait to measure objectivly... something even the difficulty and speed of the game could affect. I've been known to be a LOT more pissed after a heated game of tetris then quake.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 5:24 AM
    ProfessorOhki
  • ProfessorOhki

    That said... someone above mentioned fining stores based on the ESRB guidelines. Well, the government CAN'T. Same reason you can't fine blockbuster for renting an R movie to a 14 year old. It would constitute a government endorsement of a private rating system, which I'm fairly sure isn't legal. Same's true for the ESRB ratings. The stores could adopt in-house policies for preventing the sale to underaged customers (and latch on to the market area of their parents), but I think that's about the most you could ask for.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 5:23 AM
    ProfessorOhki
  • ProfessorOhki

    Rule #1: Correlation does not imply Causation. Perhaps violent people are more predispositioned to play violenet video games. You could even then make the argument that the video game is a safe outlet for their agressive tendancies and therefore, beneficial to the population at large. OR violent video games could be so common that anyone who comits a crime has high odds of having played one. I'm certainly not a Jack Thompson fan, but I can understand his position. (However he goes about it in all the wrong ways.) From what I saw of this debate, he thinks that the game should be reviewed for content (by him) before it's release. This should set a huge CENSORSHIP flag off in the mind of every american. He seems to think HE has the right to decide what is appropriate for the masses.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 5:22 AM
    ProfessorOhki
  • Dracopoi

    As for my views on him, I don't wish death for him. I simply want him to get off his high horse and for him to stop acting holier than thou. Am I prejudice? I believe I am because in my mind, I look at a person and have an initial impression of them. However, I leave those impressions as simply first impressions and don't make them solid until I meet them, which in my mind makes me fair. Jack Thompson, on the other hand, seems to think of video gamers as equivalent to terrorists I think. I think Jack Thompson is more of a terrorist than some video gamers are, due to his attempts at causing mass hysteria towards the effects of violent video games in my opinion.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 3:27 AM
    Dracopoi
  • Dracopoi

    Personally, I have a younger cousin who plays GTA and while his mom doesn't moniter the games he plays, I do when he's at my house. This is because he takes some of them too far and when he heard about Jack Thompson, he said that if violent video games were banned, he'd go and kill Jack Thompson... Now I told him that, that is wrong and that it's ok not to like him, but if that's how he feels, then all he's doing is proving Mr. Thompson right.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 3:25 AM
    Dracopoi
  • Dracopoi

    Ok Well I guess I want to add to this... Now for me, I'd say it's the parents' responsibility to moniter what their kids play. Do I think that all kids who play violent video games needs to be punished? No. The reason why is because that kids can still play those games as long as they understand that it is just a game, and that doing things like that in real life can lead to bad reactions.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 3:24 AM
    Dracopoi
  • sleeptastic

    Aggressive behavior is not violence. Have you ever seen to boys play-wrestling in a playground? Do you think either one of them has an intention to hurt one another?

    And yet in this study, acts even more innocent than that were regarded as 'aggressive behavior.' Hence why there are so many other studies directly refuting this oft mentioned study.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 2:16 AM
    sleeptastic
  • sleeptastic

    Aggressive behavior is not violence. Have you ever seen to boys play-wrestling in a playground? Do you think either one of them has an intention to hurt one another?

    And yet in this study, acts even more innocent than that were regarded as 'aggressive behavior.' Hence why there are so many other studies directly refuting this oft mentioned study.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 2:14 AM
    sleeptastic
  • L337_Player

    oh yeah and GridSystem
    I was saying that was a good thing that you did research because after I read it it sounded like I was saying it was stupid research, but it wasn't it was some great research =D

    Posted: August 13, 2006 12:37 AM
    L337_Player
  • L337_Player

    GridSystem
    OMG you did some actual research, but can we all still agree that Adam showed Jack Thompson
    that he was full of crap?
    Adam still proved that Jack hardly had a clue of what he was talking about though.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 12:34 AM
    L337_Player
  • Eight

    I'm sorry to say this, but even though it's somewhat of an outrageous accusation Jack Thompson does have a point. Video games still haven't been given the proper procedure in order to be treated as a recognizable medium. They're still being given the ok to controversial content and themes you'd normally find in movies/music/books (at least in america). The sooner this is recognized, the sooner gamers (as well as developers) will treat it as a serious medium. Hopefully in the long run this will pave way to better video games.

    Posted: August 13, 2006 12:31 AM
    Eight
  • Kuuma

    Adam Sessler is more genius then people give him credit for. Oh god. This helps support that JT is in fact, full of crap and knows nothing about what he was talking about. It's not hard to go to Gamespot and WATCH the trailer for Bully, which shows something almost completely different from what JT described. Your about the only normal kid in a school full of bullies and corrupt teachers and whatnot. It doesn't even acurately depict a real school. Theres not even guns, killer training / Columbine my ass.

    (Besides which, Take 2 didn't make the Hot Coffee "mod". Game companies don't make mods, MODDERS do.)

    Posted: August 12, 2006 11:01 PM
    Kuuma
  • oioidestroy

    So the ESRB slipped with the Hot Coffee mod .. Either help fix the system, or leave the dam country. You need to have some sort of faith if your still here. You aren't going to be able to "fix" society by taking art out of the SALON. Someone should keep a short leash on Thompson.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 10:21 PM
    oioidestroy
  • GridSystem

    What's more, if violent gaming really did cause permanent increases in a person's overall aggressiveness, one would expect that as gaming becomes more and more popular and pervasive, violent crime rates would increase. The reality is that violent crime rates are generally decreasing in first world countries. This too is evidence that while violent games may result in short-term increases in aggressiveness, they are not likely to contribute to significant permanent increases in aggressiveness.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 9:38 PM
    GridSystem
  • GridSystem

    The precise effects violent video gaming has on the long-term aggressiveness of gamers is as yet undetermined. For proof, I'll cite a 2005 study by researchers at the University of Illinois who attempted to correlate permanent (or at least longer lasting) changes to a persons aggressiveness to their gaming habits. The study showed that people who played Asheron's Call 2 for at least two hours a day every day (and a large proportion of these people were not gamers) showed no difference in their attitudes towards violence when compared to the control groups. This would seem to indicate that there is little if any link between violent gaming and an overall permanent increase in aggressiveness.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 9:33 PM
    GridSystem
  • GridSystem

    Dubalo7 cited an APA study published in 2000 that links playing violent video games with aggressive behaviour. I do not doubt the veracity of these findings, and understand that given the controls in place, the chance of pre-existing factors contributing significantly to aggressive behaviour is almost nil.

    However, there is a key flaw. The APA study measured aggressive behaviour shortly after the games were played. It's pretty uncontroversial to claim that playing violent games will ramp up a person's emotions during and for a short while after playing a game. In that respect, the APA study is yet another one of those "science once again proves the obvious" deal.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 9:28 PM
    GridSystem
  • GridSystem

    First off, I'd like to offer kudos to Dubalo7 (clever name, btw) for taking what is certainly an unpopular stand given the audience in question. Sessler did a downright crappy job at defending games in general, and it's good to see him called on it.

    I should also note that I have significantly less experience in the field of psychology, so it's quite possible that I'm missing something in my coming objection to Dubalo7's main argument. (Coming next post)

    Posted: August 12, 2006 9:22 PM
    GridSystem
  • nadion_storm

    sessler kicked this guy's ass, and rightly so. it's like tara reid said in 'van wilder': "censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself." games don't make people, people make games. thompson should deal with reality.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 8:04 PM
    nadion_storm
  • nadion_storm

    sessler kicked this guy's ass, and rightly so. it's like tara reid said in 'van wilder': "censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself." games don't make people, people make games. thompson should deal with reality.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 8:01 PM
    nadion_storm
  • Yuffie2006

    (prt3)

    PS--- Hello? ESRB mean anything? Don't buy your kid the game unless you think they can handle it. If your kid is a maniac, um, duh, don't buy the game. Saves you $50, saves lives, everyone can go home happy. Jeeze...

    And that hotcoffee cheat is so stupid. Its not even that serious...The game was already mature. Thats what? 17 ? What is Adults only? 18 ? 21 ? Whats the big difference there? Not only that, but there was already prostitution and worst things in that game then sex. A person seeing a RATED R movie could see more.
    Its just stupid.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 6:07 PM
    Yuffie2006
  • Yuffie2006

    (prt 2)
    If anything, they ought to talk about the good things in violent video games. Some people get mad, play a video game, and thats how they release. They're totally fine after. They have enough sense to know running around killing people is bad.

    People I've who play GTA and are violent were already violent before they got that game. They were already smoking, they were already totin' guns and whatnot, and were already in gangs. The kid who trained on doom was an idiot, because DOOM is hardly like the real world, and he had issues before he picked DOOM up. His 360 controller is not like a gun. Doom is not proper training for mass murder. He wanted to kill before he started on Doom. People need to get over it.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 6:01 PM
    Yuffie2006
  • Yuffie2006

    Poor Kevin XD
    And I had agreements with both sides, but I agree more with Adam.

    violent video games are not enough of a motivator to make you want to kill.

    Kids who go on rampages "from video games" already had much wrong with them. They were going to crack sooner or later anyway. And if I would go on a rampage, it wouldnt be because I played GTA, it wouldnt be because I play violent samurai games and have swords myself avaliable, it would be because my school sucks so bad. Seriously. Because like he said, the healthcare sucks (I've gotten sick and they dont do squat but make you sit in a chair while the nurse is laughing with her relatives on the phone, and will only get to you when you hurl all over the floor), because I go to school everyday and we dont have the proper learning facilities, or because of the stupid administration. Maybe even home life. But video games? No.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 5:58 PM
    Yuffie2006
  • natey_mcr

    Adam ROCKS!! JT is an ass

    Posted: August 12, 2006 5:19 PM
    natey_mcr
  • L337_Player

    Also, there are no bullys in my school and most of them play GTA and stuff, and the school I go to is not a private school it is a public school, and there is hardly any violence, there was about 3 fights in the whole year.

    in fact I have heard of more violence from schools for richer people, I think schools also play a roll here, I mean teenagers also have to deal with here, does anyone even remember what its like?
    its not easy to be a kid, they can be very cruel, I know this becuase it has happened to me, and i'll tell you, at those moments I feel more violent that ever.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 5:11 PM
    L337_Player
  • L337_Player

    Wow this place has gone nuts over this debate huh?
    WEll, I still stand to my side of it, though many disagree, I think its false Icefox has kind of proven this and I think Adam can see it more from our side of everything, rather than Jack, I mean I can't agree with him, he is only debating about Rockstars games, what about RE:4 or Dead Rising he doesnt care about that obviously, and werent therre bullies before this game was even though of, and did anyone listen to him he was being really descriptive, why does it matter if its a Black or White kids head, and a "dirty" toilet, well Im pretty sure every toilet is dirty = /

    Posted: August 12, 2006 5:03 PM
    L337_Player
  • HeroStrong

    ....They stopped them to early....Adam just owned Jack so badly! Go Adam!

    Posted: August 12, 2006 3:45 PM
    HeroStrong
  • josevirgil

    adam owned him, srry if i sound stupid in all these good long comments, but it was the truth

    Posted: August 12, 2006 3:27 PM
    josevirgil
  • TXVinylJunkie

    jack got PWN'D!!!!! Why don't we spade or neuter our kids and live in a lollypop society where gumdrops just fall from the sky... bull$hi7!!! Video games are a reflection of our modern society and the blame should not be put on the gaming companies who are trying to express a storyline with mature themes, it's the blame of the damn parents that lets their kids view and play violent games. If you don't want your kids playing violent games, then stop putting the blame on everyone else and just unplug the f'ing console! How hard is that. Adam, you did an excellent debate.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 2:24 PM
    TXVinylJunkie
  • TXVinylJunkie

    jack got PWN'D!!!!! Why don't we spade or neuter our kids and live in a lollypop society where gumdrops just fall from the sky... bull$hi7!!! Video games are a reflection of our modern society and the blame should not be put on the gaming companies who are trying to express a storyline with mature themes, it's the blame of the damn parents that lets their kids view and play violent games. If you don't want your kids playing violent games, then stop putting the blame on everyone else and just unplug the f'ing console! How hard is that. Adam, you did an excellent debate.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 2:11 PM
    TXVinylJunkie
  • g4g3

    well i have to say im amused i've played more then just doom and i've never been anything close to violent i just think it should be up to the parents

    Posted: August 12, 2006 12:57 PM
    g4g3
  • bones1019

    I also won't deny that playing games,sports or watching any other competitive activity may heighten a person's agression levels. Heck, my little cousin goes nuts while watching WWE, lol. But you tow a dangerous, dangerous line when responsibility isn't placed where it should be.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 11:45 AM
    bones1019
  • weezerman

    i dont think its violent video games that cause this violence, i think its stuck up pricks like this guy that make me wanna kill someone

    Posted: August 12, 2006 10:53 AM
    weezerman
  • weezerman

    Jack Thompson, please,
    SHUT THE F{}CK UP!!!

    Posted: August 12, 2006 10:50 AM
    weezerman
  • Dubalo7

    One last thing --

    Parents can control their children. But they'll fail if they aren't concerned with the issue at hand.

    Bushman recently put out an article that looked at what the studies actually show, and compared it to what the media reported. Looking at newspapers and news programs, which reach a wider audience than the journals where the research is supported, he found that the news reported lower concern about the effects of violent games on aggressive behavior. Most news programs suggested that the risk was low and that causality hadn't been shown (even though it had).

    So sure, parents should be held accountable. But the videogame industry and the media need to accurately portray the research so that parents know they need to be concerned.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 10:27 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    So let's consider what can be done. I refer you now to Rose's Theoreom. This theoreom was originally used to discuss treatment methods for suicidal individuals but can be used to refer to all behavioral propensities that have a low base rate of occurence.

    Basically rose posited and showed statistically that if you were able to treat even 50% of all the people at high risk for suicide, you would be worse off than if you were to shift the entire population one standard deviation over. So putting in educational programs that reach a larger number of people will be more effective and easier to instantiate than trying to identify problem individuals and just treat them. Basically with suicide, you can save more lives by informing the population than treating a few individuals

    So it seems better to inform the entire public about the negative effects of violent video games than to identify those individuals at high risk and just restrict their access to the games.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 10:15 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Now the first two alone might make it easy to detect people who are highly aggressive. But that concealed nature of these people in machiavellianism (and it's prevalence rate in people with the other two factors) makes detecting people who are likely to be highly aggressive very difficult. Think about all those news reports whenever they catch a serial killer. The neighbors always say, "He seemed like a normal individual."

    So just restricting these person's access to violent games is a daunting and difficult task

    Posted: August 12, 2006 10:11 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Let me address one more thing. Many people on here have suggested that we just target those people who are likely to exhibit extreme forms of aggression. So lets find the psychopaths out there and just make sure they don't play violent games. So how able are we to do this? Well I'll tell you that we're not very good (short of a structured clinical interview).

    There are three personality characteristics that we call the dark triad: Narcissism, psychopathology, and Machiavellianism. Narcissists are people with extraordinarily high self-esteem. These people are highly aggressive. Psychopaths are those people who have low empathy for others and perform behaviors just to get their way. They are also highly aggressive. Now the third one is the important one in this triad. Machiavellianism is a propensity to lie to get your way, to be manipulative and to basically put on a false front.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 10:09 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Now for some other worrying things about the effects of playing violent video games.

    Some of the research has focused on hostile cognition (having aggressive thoughts accessible in memory). Playing violent games also seems to increase hostile cognition as well. So what does this mean. Well the research has gone further to show that people who have been assigned to play a violent game also interpret ambiguously aggressive actions (those actions that could be assumed to be aggressive or assertive) as purely aggressive acts. So those people who play violent games are more likely to perceive others behavior as aggressive. This increases the likelihood that they will engage in things such as fights with others. WIth their increased tendency to use aggressiong and the increased degree of their aggressive response, this can dramatically change the face of a minor conflict.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 10:01 AM
    Dubalo7
  • MarzGurl

    You know, I am a gamer myself, though I really despise a lot of violent video games. Of course, I personally just don't find them to be fun in the least, but that's not the point. What makes me nervous is that there's so many of you people leaving comments here saying how much you love Adam and how happy you are that Jack was proven wrong. But then I see comments like, " yeah adam! rip Jack Thompson's asshole out! your my hero!" Um, yeah... Congratulations, I think you just proved Jack Thompson right. It's kind of embarassing, from a fellow gamer's perspective.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 10:00 AM
    MarzGurl
  • Dubalo7

    Pre-existing mental disabilities are not necessary to engender anger and aggression in people that warrants concern. Look to the shoolyards of our nation and the bars. People respond with aggression all the time. It is not just those that have some pre-existing psychological condition. Now, it is likely that normal people who play a game are not going to go on a killing spree. But, if we now have a large proportion of people who resort to violence to solve conflict, this is just as problematic. You all keep on turning to the killing of people. THis is not what I or Drs. Anderson and Bushman are concerned about. The concern is more that children and even young adults are learning to respond to conflict with aggression. Aggression begets more aggression and can escalate to a massive proportions quite quickly.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 9:54 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    The worst part of all of this is, is that you all keep on refering to the behavior of children. Well a large portion of these studies were run with college aged adults. You find the same results. So it is not because of the imaturity of a child that violent games increase aggressive behavior. It is just the nature of the game. It influences behavior in all people.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 9:49 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    As far as you will or desire to proceed in the game. One of Anderson's students (I believe his name is Carnegy) recently presented research at the annual meeting of the society for personality and social psychology. In this research he pitted people who played madden NFL against those playing NFL Blitz. Both are football games but the latter is a much more aggressively themed game. What were the results? Well those playing NFL blitz were significantly more aggressive than those playing Madden NFL. The competition hypothesis (which is kind of what you are refering to) does not pan out. Increased aggressiveness in the game results in increased aggressive behavior

    Posted: August 12, 2006 9:47 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Ninjitsuko -- Granted all of those things can cause aggressive behavior. Let me remind you that i have stated in my posts that I don't believe that aggression stems only from playing violent games. That would be a preposterous statement. Nevertheless, the research clearly shows that it does increase aggressive behavior. This is something that was lost in the debate. The issue turned more to, are violent games responsible for columbine? No, not directly, but they did play a role. Now should video game companies be held accountable? No, the overwhelming number of other factors make that a ridiculous case to make. Nevertheless, Violent games increase aggress behavior and it seems that they do so more than many other types of violent media.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 9:42 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Ninjitsuko

    I would be inclined to say that those that have been brought to the level of aggressiveness that are now examples *in favor* of Anti-Violent Video Game activists had pre-existing mental instabilities prior to playing Doom, Grand Theft Auto, Quake, or any other 'excessively' violent game there is out there. It takes a pre-existing condition for a low level of aggression to elevate into something dangerous for those around said person. That is why there are so many 'gamers' out there that are outraged at the fact that people like Jack Thompson classify us all as the same type (ie: those whom will seek out and destroy life because Rockstar/Take Two told us to). I understand you're on our side, but I'm only bringing to light to others who may read this.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 9:18 AM
    Ninjitsuko
  • Ninjitsuko

    At the end of the day, I'm sure we all can agree that it is in the hands of the adult as to whom is responsible for the child's development. There will be some children who easily are led into focusing on the minute aggression and letting it fuel its way to something potientially dangerous to the community, his/herself, or to others in general. The overall consensus will agree that we're not classified into that group of individuals while growing up with our 'gamer lifestyle'. Majority of us haven't shot someone, stabbed someone, robbed a bank, slept with a prositute (and then killed her), ran around a city with rocket launchers, mutilated an animal or person, or any other extremely violent things that we have done within the virtual realms.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 9:15 AM
    Ninjitsuko
  • Ninjitsuko

    Of course, I noticed that the studies indicate an aggressive cognition out of many of the case studies. Again, this could simply be based on the fact that people are aware of what will get in their way and will be more aggressive of said object. For a gamer, this would be a Boss, Miniboss, or Objective that needs to be completed before proceeding in the game. Speaking as a gamer, I'd have to admit that there have been times where I've been frustrated in a particular situation due to a video game (frustration can fuel aggressiveness towards a particular object, obviously). However, I've never once reached for a gun or attacked someone simply due to that minute level of aggressiveness I've felt towards them (in a real life situation).

    Posted: August 12, 2006 9:11 AM
    Ninjitsuko
  • Ninjitsuko

    I'm not saying that it's unlikely to become aggressive after playing a violent video game, especially by the definition/classification that was given in the report, it is just the fact that it seems that the aggressive behaviour is simply an enchanced desire to proceed in the game. Haven't many athletes become frustrated or intolerant of a situation if they weren't proceeding as planned? How many football coaches/players were removed from the stadium/field due to their aggression towards the referee or an 'official'? How things are phrased in regards to open debating online/offline (or even on AOTS), it seems that the level of aggression would be something far more disastrous to the community; instead of the classification of aggression being...(simply put) 'the will and/or desire to proceed in the game'.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 9:09 AM
    Ninjitsuko
  • Ninjitsuko

    Body language, terminology, physical behaviour in general are all factors that one can observe in order to determine how aggressive a person is at the time of observation. I've skimmed over notes of the studies aforementioned and I can't seem to understand where it all comes into play here. In Dr.Anderson's studies, he indicates that aggression being classfied as "behavior intended to harm another individual who is motivated to avoid that harm. It is not an effect, emotion, or aggressive thought, plan, or wish. This definition excludes accidental acts that lead to harm, such as losing control of an auto and accidentally killing a pedestrian, but includes behaviors intended to harm even if the attempt fails, such as when a bullet is fired from a gun misses its human target." This leads me to see Jack Thompson's subject matter completely different than the one that was listed in the finalized report based on the studies.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 9:01 AM
    Ninjitsuko
  • Ninjitsuko

    Dubalo7, you've made some very valid points; yet objectional ones as well. Being heavily inclined towards the studies and reports that have been done, we cannot rule out the possibliity of what has been considered "aggressive behaviour" isn't particularly the same as what Jack Thompson (or many others) are throwing it out to be. Aggressive ness can come from a multitude of factors (subsidiary or not); which includes (but is not limited to): mental chemistry (adrendaline, for example), personal background (experiences / unresolved problems), and general day-to-day frustrations. Granted, I'll admit that video games can *enhance* aggressiveness and can elevate such changes from a conscious thought to an action (behavior itself).

    Posted: August 12, 2006 8:58 AM
    Ninjitsuko
  • Fire_Eating_Rat

    I was at a Game Stop the other day and I heard something that made me burst out laughing. A kid of no older then ten was so happy about getting a game. "Can I please have Hitman one and Hitman Two." my laughter stopped when the woman on the ceilphone said "Sure. Sure, what ever." and bought the two games. Now if this kid goes around pulling string around people's neck it's the game's fault. -_-;;

    Posted: August 12, 2006 8:21 AM
    Fire_Eating_Rat
  • Rieter

    Become part of http://www.videogamevoters.org / . Start your own web page and gather us up and spread the word. Just do it in an approachable manner, not as screaming raving lunatics, otherwise we lose from the get go. WE can do this, WE can come together and stop this desecration of on of MY favorite past times and yours. It is OUR responsibility to protect it and its no ones fault but OURS if we don't. Let us try this, let us find a way to congregate. WE have more resources available to us than ANY other generation to form a PROACTIVE PROTECTIVE movement against these local forces of misunderstanding and we MUST use them or otherwise our future as a gaming nation. Any ideas, thoughts, concepts, leads, sites to go to, please, send them my way @ savethegames(AT)gmail.com Thank you and good luck to us all. apologies for the multi post, but i had to say it.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 7:54 AM
    Rieter
  • Rieter

    With the approaching election of hillary and her adamant stance against gaming, we are on the verge of having our community and past time ripped about by people who DONT EVEN PLAY WHAT WE DO. We, as a gaming nation, as a gaming world need to stand up and deliver. We must consolidate ourselves into a united force to combat these people and others who do not even realize what this is ultimately about. Mark hit it squarely on the head with the remarks about it is the PARENTS responsibility to control their children, not jack, not the government. You cannot compare us to other nations as we LEFT one nation to become our own. This modern day media mcarthyism is a sham, putting gamers into abasement and we do nothing put act as they expect us to, squabbling, infighting and general over all dissent. Once again, this does nothing but MAKES THEM RIGHT, we MUST unite on this. (continued)

    Posted: August 12, 2006 7:53 AM
    Rieter
  • Rieter

    The problem here is that when a situation like this occurs, the more we let people like Adam Sessler who cant control himself talk for us, it makes us look more like what they say we are. Adam, your a good guy, but your to emotional about this and that is what fuels this in the wrong direction. The more they lie and throw their studies at us, the more we clamor and back peddle. Half the responses to this video do nothing but bolster jacks ideas that gamers are nothing more than a violent decadent group of kids who want to shoot main pillage and kill. Don't get me wrong, I've been playing games since I was 4. Four years old and now I'm 27 and I never shot anyone, I don't own a gun, I don't stab people with knives, I don't pimp or beat up hookers. My opinion is this is a battle that we as a gaming community are not quite fit to fight and all this has done, this video is prove that in the disconcerting way that we cannot get a single voice together and speak as one. (continued)

    Posted: August 12, 2006 7:51 AM
    Rieter
  • rcsmith

    I think Tom Cruise put it the best in Collateral.

    "I didn't kill him, the bullet and the fall did."

    Posted: August 12, 2006 7:26 AM
    rcsmith
  • Dementedpiggy

    I Agree with the middle guy...Video games are not to blame for the violence, shitty parenting is.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 5:52 AM
    Dementedpiggy
  • Strifeous

    Agreed with Stabby_Joe. Jack Thompson was basically an old man fighting the younger generation while Adam Sessler was the better talker who butt-raped Mr. Thompson in a debate. But the middle guy had the key point: It's up the the responsibility in children. And there are far more violent music and movies out than games, and more easily accesible too. Well, we have the first amendment, which reads to Mr. Thompson, "Suck it!"

    Posted: August 12, 2006 4:53 AM
    Strifeous
  • Nelgtawa

    I work in a video store in New Zealand. Here we have game ratings, and without ID, you can't rent or buy games that have a rating if you are too young. I have had NUMEROUS parents coming into my work and letting their kids (10-16 years old) hire out different copies of the Grand Theft Auto series - where's the control? They come to the counter and I'm like "Do you know what's in this game? You sure you want your kid playing this?" and they don't care - they actually get pissed at me for questioning their decision. All this said and done, I don't really think that video games make kids violent. Check out the middle east - people there blow themselves up everyday just to kill 'infidels' or something. That stuff is wrong, and I bet they've never even played video games.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 4:52 AM
    Nelgtawa
  • Stabby_Joe

    Funnly the middle guy had the best points out of all three... not suprised, he was the most together...

    Posted: August 12, 2006 3:53 AM
    Stabby_Joe
  • jr_maty

    What planet are all you guys on? Jack Thompson came away looking much better than the other two stumbling 'I-love-my-voice' idoits. Thomspon remained calm throughout despite G4 pitting him against two opponents. Well done, G4.

    Besides that, Jack Thomspon was right - here in the UK we do have laws preventing 15 and 18 rated games to those under those ages, and we do have an equvilent law of the First Amendment (the Human Rights Act, 1999). Mr Sessler should really do his research.

    That said, I do not agree that violent games cause violence, but I do believe that Jack Thomposon highlights a problem with the US laws on censorship and certification of products. The US ought to have similar laws to the UK, games erated 18 (or whatever it is in the US) should not be sold to anyone under that age - if so, then people under that age would not be exposed to the violent games anyway.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 2:39 AM
    jr_maty
  • jjzibs

    Oh and on a side note... has anybody seen that movie Hostel. Way not scary, more disgusting than anything, but it left me feeling more disturbed than any game i have ever played.

    P.S. doom is a training aid, thats wierd, i would have picked that America's Army game, you know, the one that is "USED BY THE UNITED STATES MILITARY". lol, that should be a text book definition of a training aid.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 12:53 AM
    jjzibs
  • Curbside_Prophet

    *sigh*if games cause agressive behaviour, be it aggressive punching kittens in the face, or agressive underwater basketweaving, then there really is no debate. So what? What does that have to do with anything really? Tell this to parents then, not the video game magazines/tv shows.

    I work in record store where we sell also video games and DVD's, and I can tell you that I refuse to sell M-Rated games, R-Rated movies, or even Parental Advisory CD's to people under a certain age(17 for M and R Rated product, 14 for explicit lyriced CD's), if the parent isnt there. But parents still should do their damn job. Get involved with your kids. VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT YOUR KIDS' BABYSITTERS. YOU ARE YOUR KIDS' BABYSITTERS.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 12:46 AM
    Curbside_Prophet
  • jjzibs

    Oh and on a side note... has anybody seen that movie Hostel. Way not scary, more disgusting than anything, but it left me feeling more disturbed than any game i have ever played.

    P.S. doom is a training aid, thats wierd, i would have picked that America's Army game, you know, the one that is "USED BY THE UNITED STATES MILITARY". lol, that should be a text book definition of a training aid.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 12:45 AM
    jjzibs
  • gamefan1016

    Adam Sessler rocked! I hope he reads this, just so he'll know how cool that was. He shut that lawyer jerk up. He won 1 of many battles started by, way too anal people, who always try to destroy a good thing. Adam said the thing that cries out what really causes real world violance, from teens. Parents. If parents are to busy with their own agendas to listen to their own kids, of course they'll #$@#*& up! But the parents are too ignorant to believe they could skrew up, I mean really know human could skrew up, EVER. Jack Thompson SUCKS!!!!

    Posted: August 12, 2006 12:31 AM
    gamefan1016
  • KINGIDIOT88

    It cut me a little short so here is the rest.
    Worrie about yourself, sure some people who play video games happen to play out violent scenarios but that is a so few compared to how many play violent games that the games could not be the only thing that is reponisble for it if the have any thing to do with it at all.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 12:31 AM
    KINGIDIOT88
  • KINGIDIOT88

    I've played video games most of my life violent or otherwise, but I don't think its caused me to be more violent. I know many people my age that have played more then me and they don't seem any more violent for it. If someone tries to reenact what happens in those video games they have more problems then just being exposed to violent games. It is the parents responsibility to decide if the child is able to be playing the games the child is playing. Those ratings are put there as a tool for the parents who should know what their childern are playing if you beleive the game is to violent for childern then don't allow your childern to play them, but don't try to take the games out of peoples hands who have a right to play what they want.

    Posted: August 12, 2006 12:30 AM
    KINGIDIOT88
  • jjzibs

    if there was an uprise in real life violence, I believe the blame should rest on the shoulders of the adolescents/adults that could not see the difference between reality and fiction. I myself am a gamer, and yes i have played violent ones, in fact I have been playing doom, the so-called training aid, since I was 8 years old. But honestly all i am really doing when i play a game, violent or otherwise, is manipulating data. It is up to us as gamers to see the difference between reality and ficton, from age 10+. If we can't see a difference by then, we might want to put down the controller... just to be on the safe side
    P.S. Adam you rock!!!

    Posted: August 12, 2006 12:28 AM
    jjzibs
  • finfarfin

    I played mortal combat to death but I never really envisioned myself killing anyone scorpion style. Doing the splits and hitting someone in the croch maybe, but that was just too damn awsome. I have a love for doing head shots in halo 2 on xbox live, and I have played pretty much every violent game I could get my hands on (being depressed frees up alot of time:).)
    Either I didn't play enough of these games, I am not nearly as much of a risk as I think, or games were not all that effective at enciting me to violence. By the way I am eight months free of the depression and feeling great! Enlightenment (sans the religious crap) is excellent.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 11:02 PM
    finfarfin
  • finfarfin

    1:I became atheist at a very young age(this is the only life I got so why spend it in a padded cell, ya know?),
    2:I was raised in a VERY mormon community (atheist now, sorry) where it was a very loving community.
    I gotta ask, how many of these kids that commit crimes were raised in a loving community?
    3:My brothers and sisters, lots of them, mormon you know? :), taught me everything I know about right and wrong and I don't recall that killing was ever in the "right" catagory.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 11:01 PM
    finfarfin
  • finfarfin

    Okay, I haven't read everybodies post cause I'm ADHD. Let's roll. I probably should be a mass murder or whatever. Genetic history of mental problems, father molested sister, parents divorced, lived my entire life in a house designed for 4 people with at least 9, when I was 10 I developed depression, then I developed what I guess was paranoia (the pictures on the walls were always watching me... I swear thats what I thought). You can imagine how fun THAT was in cramped quarters.
    But I gotta say, Jack is full of it. I haven't killed anyone because

    Posted: August 11, 2006 11:00 PM
    finfarfin
  • bones1019

    I can't beleieve this debate is still going on. And no disrespect to the psychologist who posted. Maybe video games help to bring out agression in people. But this guys argument doesn't merely just state that. He flat out attacks the gaming community as the social ill behind violence amongs young people. Its loaded statements with no actual real way to back it up. Until he can somehow poll every last gamer on this planet in a fair, unbiased way, then he should leave his ideas as just that ideas or suggestions and not as some religious mess that he has. If anything, its extreme people like this that causes folks to want to flip out.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 10:51 PM
    bones1019
  • rcsmith

    Kevin Pereira, grow some balls and let the motherf#cker just duke it out. Who gives a f#ck you are running into a commerical break, keep that sh#t rolling. F#ck the show format, like we actually give a sh#t on half of the sh#t on AoTS. And finally there something really good to watch on AoTS and you ballless pu$$$y stops the probably your only chance at an emmy.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 10:11 PM
    rcsmith
  • MaraJade124

    Remember before we had computers and video games and we were all hippies and were too high on drugs to kill people? maybe we should all go back to those days Jack. Would that make you happy? They don't have the first amendment in England he blithered about. He should just sew his mouth shut and save the rest of the planet from his stupidity.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 9:39 PM
    MaraJade124
  • Evil_Dot

    Sorry, Edit my last post and change FACTS with RESEARCH. Thank you.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 9:33 PM
    Evil_Dot
  • Evil_Dot

    Oh, and btw, i am against what Jack is portraying. What i believe is truly happening is that the American Media is merely searching for a scape goat to blame the corruption and death of this country; preferably a piece of the economy that doesnt make as much money as other parts (porn, movies, music, etc...). I think that people wish to protect the larger moneymaking parts of the economy while blaming much of what happens on the smaller ones. For example, the american pornagraphy industry makes approximately 6 billion a year, whereas the major media channels (CNN, FOX, etc...) make approximately 3 or 4; on the other hand, the VG business makes a much lower amount (100's of millions i believe). It is due to our own greed that we wish to protect the larger industries and sacrifice the smaller ones. But I also repeat Dubalo's FACTS; video games can increase the aggresivness of those that play them, but they WONT FORCE the gamers to kill.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 9:20 PM
    Evil_Dot
  • Evil_Dot

    Oh, and tonicrigid, Sessler (while he is quite enjoyable to listen to) interrupted Jack a good deal too.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 9:09 PM
    Evil_Dot
  • tkeal

    yeah adam! rip Jack Thompson's asshole out! your my hero!

    Posted: August 11, 2006 9:07 PM
    tkeal
  • Evil_Dot

    I must say, Dubalo, I sincerely agree with your posts; you are not saying that video games cause violence, you are merely stating that they have an EFFECT upon the collective aggresiveness of a person. I myself enjoy video games and play them all the time, and I believe had I never touched a game in my life, i would be a different person. What Dubalo is saying is that video games can cause aggresivness; what he is not saying is that video games make people want to kill everyone around them. Please people, if you wish to debate, you must look on both sides of the issue before stating somethign off the top of your head, ok?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 9:06 PM
    Evil_Dot
  • JaymEsch

    Oh... wait. I just noticed you actually said "there is no proof that cigarettes cause cancer".

    Now I KNOW Dubalo is intellectually challenged or just trolling. You think ANY study that shows smoking to NOT cause cancer is not *bought and paid for* by the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry? I have several bridges to sell you if you believe this to be true.

    Gamers, enjoy your hobby- there's nothing superior, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it- regardless of your age, 34 or 14.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:41 PM
    JaymEsch
  • JaymEsch

    Dubalo, you're going to have to repeat that nonsense infinitely, because that's what happens when you're wrong... no one wants to listen to it.

    One example of proper research done without a conservative bias as pointed out during the show: http://biz.gamedaily.com/indus try/myturn/?id=10787

    Regardless, I already listed the peremptory points above on this issue.

    Based on your arguments, someone who buys a painting with violent imagery is likely to become violent. It makes no rational sense to anyone with an IQ over 60.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:36 PM
    JaymEsch
  • tonicrigid

    Thompson really needs to learn to shut up when someone is talking. You don't win an argument by constantly stopping your opponent in mid sentence. I'm starting to dislike him more and more each day, he pops off about how he'll donate a few thousand dollars to charity if someone makes his game. Someone does and he starts to cry and says that he was just making a point and didn't actually intend to donate anything. Then two good, honest gamers donated the money in his name. Thompson is trying to brainwash people into thinking we are all ticking timebombs waiting to snap and kill someone.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:03 PM
    tonicrigid
  • Skypants

    Does Jack Thompson even play videogames? He hasnt even seen "Bully" in action so he has nothing to go on. Thank you Mr. Sessler for defending us, the gamers, against the modern day Hitler Jack Thompson, so we may pwn another day.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:52 PM
    Skypants
  • Glowznthadark

    Now honestly, Jack is blaming Video Games for what reason now? That the Gaming Industires are in not so many words turning them violent. Jack From watching the video over 4 different times, stated that as American we must indulge in laws that are the same and the UK. to where he will benifit from being anti american by letting more socialist terms take over instead of drawing up the issue of that PARENTS are the #1 people to blame cause all children are under the parents rule in the parent`s home, Video Games are not at fault. Its Mommy & Daddy who are the true Criminals to alow their children to become what our grovernment now fears. So in all honesty Why are Companies out to get a buck to blame when its those who buy the gam,e for their kids not getting punished? This Is reasons why the HAVE WARNINGS.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:22 PM
    Glowznthadark
  • Pachilles

    Dubalo7, you are taking things out of context when you keep referring to that study of video games causing aggression. The study may be accurate, but it doesn't truly say what you think it does. You are looking at a group playing a competitive game. To get the real picture, compare other competitive games, like football, basketball, baseball, tug-of-war, etc. Try and compare with non-gaming events. Again, I bring up Thompson and his debating. Can you see how aggressive a simple debate becomes. All competition causes aggression. To blame video games means you aren't looking at the whole picture. Sure, we can talk about reducing aggression and the causes, but to blame video games is like blaming a cherry for making your ice cream sundae taste sweet. Banning cherries wont solve anything.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:16 PM
    Pachilles
  • MC2990

    remember the time before video games where there was no violence and agression towards others and it was a happy world where everybody just got along and held hands, sang songs about how peacefull and happy everybody was. yhea....... that was great... oh wait that didn't happen i was thinking like Jack Tompsom for a second. There most certainly was a lot of violence before video games and no one can deny that and to say that media is the cause of all our problems is rediculous. Adam Kicks Ass

    Posted: August 11, 2006 6:53 PM
    MC2990
  • T3KK9

    Until you realize that just because they increase the LIKELIHOOD that people will responsd with aggression doesn't mean they WILL respond. If I see gangs of 12 year-olds beating old people, hi-jacking cars and shooting cops in a certain grand theft auto-esque way..then i'll start to worry. But until then, videogames get enough bad press from uneducated news sources, its nice to see the gamers get their opinion across.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 6:07 PM
    T3KK9
  • Icefenix_45560

    JACK, WHY HAVENT YOU JUMPED OFF THAT CLIFF YET? THIS IS MY ANGER, IT CAME FROM VIDEOGAMES, I FEEL LIKE STEALING A HAM FROM WAL-MART NOW, BECAUSE OF SAN-ANDREAS. actually crime rates in kids ages 13-17 have dropped to their LOWEST LEVELS EVER RECORDED in 2004, as found by the FBI and http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

    Posted: August 11, 2006 6:05 PM
    Icefenix_45560
  • Icefenix_45560

    jack thompson, go jump off a cliff, you will do the world a favor

    Posted: August 11, 2006 6:00 PM
    Icefenix_45560
  • Dubalo7

    Yes, there was violence before video games. This is however a stupid point to make. I am not saying that video games are the only cause of aggression. But they do increase the likelihood that people will respond with aggression. How many more times do I have to make that statement.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 5:43 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Video games are addictive, similar to the way gambling is addictive. Sure there is no additive in video games like nicotine, but they are somewhat addictive.

    The reason I brought up cigarettes and cancer anyway was to show that their are a lot of problems with the research showing the link between smoking cigarettes and getting lung cancer. These problems aren't present in the research on video game violence and aggression. But I imagine you agree with the finding that cigarettes cause cancer right? Well then you shouldn't deny the research showing a link between Violent VG and aggression because it is based on stronger experimental research that can show a cause and effect relationship

    Posted: August 11, 2006 5:39 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    And still when you run a study today comparing people who have played a violent game vs those who didn't you still see that the people who play the violent game show more aggression. So how could something that increases aggression, decrease the violent crime rate?

    And the type of relationship you are reporting (correlational) is the exact same type of research that people in the video game industry say isn't valid when it shows the opposite relationship (that playing violent games increases aggressive behavior). What do these studies have that yours don't though? They had the intended purpose to look at the relationship between violent games and aggression and they also have experimental data to back them up.

    As far as Sessler being so well informed since he is a gamer. What does being a gamer mean for understanding how empirical research is conducted? You're all gamers and you don't seem to understand the nature of cause and effect relationships. Neither does Mr. Sessler.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 5:36 PM
    Dubalo7
  • DominoMisfit

    Adam is right on the money with his comments. This calls for a round "2" debait! Its a bit sad to see how parents are blaming there neglect for not being there for there kids on video games its about time parents became responsible for what there kids do with there free time, these parents are real quick to blame video games when the fault lies with them, there’s a rating on the cover of the box for a reason.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 5:36 PM
    DominoMisfit
  • alice_mega

    I would have to say yes and no in answer to the question.
    Most kids are smart enough to not say 'so now i finished GTA and I wanna kill me sum peeople'.
    But there are the few little crazies out there that they may influence. But they would have shot their class up anyways.
    It's a dead end disputer.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 5:34 PM
    alice_mega
  • Dubalo7

    Aroudn the time that games came out legislation was also passed to make it harder to purchase a gun. More money was also put into the national budget for police departments. Essentially there were a lot more things that would more directly reduce the crime rate than the presence of video games.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 5:33 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    So I here this argument a lot that crime has gone down since video games came out.

    Again let me say that we are not just talking about violent crime, we are also talking about adolescents responding aggressively (and this is not just adolescents in the studies adults also respond aggressively after playing violent games).

    As for the recent drop the crime rate, there are several factors that could account for this. You can't find a general in the population and say that it is video games that caused the decrease.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 5:32 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Icefenix_45560

    here are the actual pictures you should look at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/g lance/viort.gif http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/g lance/firearmnonfatalno.gif these come from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs sorry about my last post it didnt come out as expected.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 5:26 PM
    Icefenix_45560
  • Icefenix_45560

    Look at these statistics.. these are used by the FBI so they are the real deal.
    from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs < br />
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs /glance/viort.gif

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs /glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif

    ---------------------------- -----------------
    Some quotes
    ---------------------------- -----------------

    In 2004, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced approximately 24 million crimes, according to findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey.
    -- 77% (18.6 million) were property crimes

    -- 21% (5.2 million) were crimes of violence

    -- 1% were personal thefts.


    These are statistics that the FBI uses
    notice something???? I think violence has
    gone WAY down since video games came out.


    from
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

    Posted: August 11, 2006 5:24 PM
    Icefenix_45560
  • jdproductions

    Mr. Sessler is a true gamer, he understands that if the parents that supplied the games to their childern understood that the games rated "M" weren't meant for their 11yr. olds, than maybe all this so called "Video Game Induced Violence" wouldn't be such a problem. And quite frankly Mister.... no he doesn't deserve that um..... Negitive Jackass, Jack Thompson can shove Grand Theft Auto 4 & Bully up his ASS! Adam Sessler was amazing in this "Loop" and Rockstar, Rockstar North, and Take Two are true modern rebels!!


    - Duffy

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:58 PM
    jdproductions
  • jdproductions

    Mr. Sessler is a true gamer, he understands that if the parents that supplied the games to their childern understood that the games rated "M" weren't meant for their 11yr. olds, than maybe all this so called "Video Game Induced Violence" wouldn't be such a problem. And quite frankly Mister.... no he doesn't deserve that um..... Negitive Jackass, Jack Thompson can shove Grand Theft Auto 4 & Bully up his ASS! Adam Sessler was amazing in this "Loop" and Rockstar, Rockstar North, and Take Two are true modern rebels!!


    - Duffy

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:57 PM
    jdproductions
  • gamer14113

    I just wanted to say that I completely agree with everything that Adam said,and Adam you rock,that Thompson guy is an idiot and people need to leave this subject alone.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:55 PM
    gamer14113
  • padge

    smoking w/ cancer is not the same as video games and violence. Cigarrets have nicotine which make you smoke. Games are just something that is digital NOT PHYSICAL. If what your saying is true, youre telling me that if im playing Katamari Damaci, then it will make me aggressive. Scientific studies cant PROVE anyhting. It can only disprove. Like gravity. If you drop a apple it will fall, but that isnt proven. Its disporven that it will go up.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:54 PM
    padge
  • padge

    smoking w/ cancer is not the same as video games and violence. Cigarrets have nicotine which make you smoke. Games are just something that is digital NOT PHYSICAL. If what your saying is true, youre telling me that if im playing Katamari Damaci, then it will make me aggressive. Scientific studies cant PROVE anyhting. It can only disprove. Like gravity. If you drop a apple it will fall, but that isnt proven. Its disporven that it will go up.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:52 PM
    padge
  • padge

    AND, just because someone looses at a game and starts beating up the winner doesnt mean the game increases that. Its unsportsmanlike behavior, just lke in sports, you lose, your upset and sometimes that can get violent, EXACTLY the same as video games. You just want to WIN.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:48 PM
    padge
  • padge

    Oh, and another example of games that dont permit violence. In the conversation he said DOOM inspired the Columbine. Well, I dont see people with rocket launchers or flamethrowers going down the streets. Sure, some people go down the roads with tanks just like in GTA, but that was because of problems related to illegal drugs. I dont know how people can bring up games into violence. Think about When George A. Romero made his first zombie movie. I dont think that inspired violence. And serioudly, has anything like the Columbine happened in a while? Sure, people bring weapons to school, but not like someone makes them mad so they go home, and play a video game to learn how to kill everyone in the school. Games cant make you more aggressive, games can get you frustrated and everything, but they wont make you more likely to attack someone for doing something to them. Games are like a differant realm for reality. If people get confused which is which, then its not the games fault.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:37 PM
    padge
  • MaraJade124

    Jack Shouldn't try and keep everyone from enjoying something, sorry typo.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:31 PM
    MaraJade124
  • jojeta2

    I always thought Adam was cool and he knows what he is talking about since he is a gamer, so to Jack Thompson, who isn't, how would he know how video games affect people? He said it himself, he didn't do the research, so why would I listen to him? After watching this I wondered what kind of a childhood he had, because I bet he never played video games, and if he never did he should shut up and go play some, he might have some fun resulting in the stick up his butt to loosen. It's not just video games that do things to people they are just GAMES!

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:30 PM
    jojeta2
  • MaraJade124

    Video games have no bearing at all toward violence. A. there was violence before video games and B. the person who commits horrible crimes has to be screwed up in the head and then they say it was a video game that made them do it because they don't want to take responsibility for their crime. Jack Thompson need to learn that there are other factors in the world that contribute to violence and video games isn't one of them. If he doesn't like something that's fine he should try and keep everyone else from enjoying it. Adam Sessler did an awsome job debating him. Adam's a very smart guy, and we do have rules about selling video games to kids. It's called ESRB and stores not selling M Rated games to people under 18 without an adult. Jack needs to learn how to not be dumb.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:29 PM
    MaraJade124
  • padge

    Violence in video games doesnt effect anything. Its just the same as life but in a differant universe. People have been violent ever since creation of humans. And It doesnt matter if the UK doesnt alow kids to buy M rated games. You cant even do that in the U.S. So it I the parents choice by buying the games FOR them. ADAM IS MY HERO, HE TOLD HIM OFF SO BAD.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:29 PM
    padge
  • Shadechidna

    I've seen the previous debates on the violence of video games, and this one is no surprise. I enjoyed watching this, and I side with Adam Sessler on this one. Jack only pins games for the violence, but does not take into concideration of the real world itself. It might not even be games being the cause. It could be violence within the home itself, school or television. I could tell right away that Jack was seriously losing this debate. GO ADAM! :D

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:26 PM
    Shadechidna
  • Sanjuaro

    Before video games were even out there was much crime. Banks were being blown up by gangsters and kids were still being bullied in schools.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 3:55 PM
    Sanjuaro
  • userpay

    Go to vgcats, at the top of the news (under the new comic #206) is Total Ownage which links to the page with this and then you click the comments right under the video.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 3:47 PM
    userpay
  • T3KK9

    i've noticed i'll goto homepage and it'll say there only 54 comments or something

    Posted: August 11, 2006 3:29 PM
    T3KK9
  • T3KK9

    goddamn refresh.. i'm sorry

    Posted: August 11, 2006 3:27 PM
    T3KK9
  • userpay

    T3KK9 Go to the front page or something after each of your posts so you don't clog the board with you reposts as a result of refreshing.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 3:21 PM
    userpay
  • T3KK9

    and with that i'm done.....hopefully....i think

    Posted: August 11, 2006 3:17 PM
    T3KK9
  • T3KK9

    and with that i'm done.....hopefully....i think

    Posted: August 11, 2006 3:06 PM
    T3KK9
  • T3KK9

    and with that i'm done.....hopefully....i think

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:59 PM
    T3KK9
  • T3KK9

    I think this attitude is due to them thinking "oh its a videogame..ALL videogames are for kids right? I mean it is a videogame?" I believe the ESRB, your government (not a US Citizen btw, I come from the north lol), and anyone with a major influence in what parents act on, needs to make a campaign on an epic scale educating them that videogames are not just for kids anymore, run commercials during NFL games, episodes of Lost, ANYTHING BIG so these people realise that gaming isn't childs play anymore, and that there are differences between Super Mario Bros. and Manhunt

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:56 PM
    T3KK9
  • Dubalo7

    And yes, the biggest problem is that parents let children buy violent games. But why is this? Well its because the VG companies and the media (yes the news also underreports the effects of violent VG on aggression) tell them that there isn't as much concern as is needed. All Social psychologists suggest is that people err on the side of caution when considering what they expose their children to. Not that violent games should be banned.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:55 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Musc delves deeper into a persons primal brain? Wow, if that is some psychobabble BS I don't know what is.

    Video games are interactive that means that when your character shoots someone, it is a direct effect of you doing something. Music is something you can passively listen to. Yes, it too can cause aggression (this has also been studied by psychologists). But the interactive nature of video games has proven to be a much more direct cause of aggression.

    As far as jack Thompson -- Go ahead and keep on lynching him. I don't like him either.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:52 PM
    Dubalo7
  • T3KK9

    holy crap you're right! damn you refresh..but anyway..I thought I was done here.. but I think I left too soon.. What I failed to mention was that I think the problem is that all these people are worried about their KIDS and these violent games..NEWSFLASH they're KIDS!! M-FOR MATURE IS NOT FOR KIDS. I worked in a Wal-Mart electronics dept from sept last year 'til may. I saw ALOT of parents shell out money for GTA:San Andreas, 50cent, etc. and their kids were in plain sight. I told these people "if you get him GTA you might as well be buying him porn" sometimes they'd actually listen to me but mostly they diddn't care.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:51 PM
    T3KK9
  • AgentIndigo

    I think Thompson held himself together better than Sessler. Sessler blustered and twitched and was more eager to attack everything Thompson said than to actually discuss the topic. This made Thompson seem more composed, while Sessler just wanted to be your hero.

    The fact is we need someone like Thompson around just to:
    1: Remind us that there has to be more than one opinion.
    2: Show that there is a position called "Gamer's #1 enemy" and Jack Thompson just happens to fill it. If we constantly insult him and send sarcastic flowers, I can understand why he says stunned things in retaliation.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:48 PM
    AgentIndigo
  • T3KK9

    why the hell does this stupid machine double post what I write? lol..whatever

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:46 PM
    T3KK9
  • AgentIndigo

    I think Thompson held himself together better than Sessler. Sessler blustered and twitched and was more eager to attack everything Thompson said than to actually discuss the topic. This made Thompson seem more composed, while Sessler just wanted to be your hero.

    The fact is we need someone like Thompson around just to:
    1: Remind us that there has to be more than one opinion.
    2: Show that there is a position called "Gamer's #1 enemy" and Jack Thompson just happens to fill it. If we constantly insult him and send sarcastic flowers, I can understand why he says stunned things in retaliation.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:46 PM
    AgentIndigo
  • Pachilles

    I disagree with your (Dubalo7) perspective of music not being compared to gaming based aggression increases, as music delves deeper into a person's primal brain. But that's not what my post is about.
    I would seriously like to see another scientific study of aggression, directly aimed at large groups of self-professed gamers. In that study, measure aggression increases in verying age groups split by: gamers playing violent games (their choice), another similar group not playing, and another group of gamers forced to listen to Thompson's rants about gaming/gamers. I can just about guarantee that the rant listeners aggression factor will sky-rocket.
    I say we ban Thompson from speaking, simply due to his ability to cause violent behavior.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:43 PM
    Pachilles
  • AgentIndigo

    I think Thompson held himself together better than Sessler. Sessler blustered and twitched and was more eager to attack everything Thompson said than to actually discuss the topic. This made Thompson seem more composed, while Sessler just wanted to be your hero.

    The fact is we need someone like Thompson around just to:
    1: Remind us that there has to be more than one opinion.
    2: Show that there is a position called "Gamer's #1 enemy" and Jack Thompson just happens to fill it. If we constantly insult him and send sarcastic flowers, I can understand why he says stunned things in retaliation.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:43 PM
    AgentIndigo
  • userpay

    Hey if you refresh after posting then it double posts you.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:39 PM
    userpay
  • userpay

    Also just so you guys know I might use things from here for a report if I get the chance but don’t worry about what you post, I’ll screen (bleep out or change so as not to cause problems with teachers) any foul language, ect that’s inappropriate and give the resource (your usernames and site) I got it from. Keep posting because this is a good debate.? Jack you can piss off.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:38 PM
    userpay
  • T3KK9

    why the hell does this stupid machine double post what I write? lol..whatever

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:36 PM
    T3KK9
  • userpay

    Also just so you guys know I might use things from here for a report if I get the chance but don’t worry about what you post, I’ll screen (bleep out or change so as not to cause problems with teachers) any foul language, ect that’s inappropriate and give the resource (your usernames and site) I got it from. Keep posting because this is a good debate.? Jack you can piss off.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:36 PM
    userpay
  • userpay

    Plus I don’t necessarily consider M to be for just adults, that’s why they have the Adult Only rating and most stores (as far as I know being 15) don’t sell them and are obviously under the counter sells at whatever stores that do sell them. You also have to consider the Actual violence in the game. Playing a violent sci-fi, fantasy, hack and slash, or strategy (i.e. advance wars, field commander, final fantasy tactics (both versions)) game is probably less likely to cause people to become more aggressive than a shooter or war game. -continued-

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:35 PM
    userpay
  • userpay

    The only way video games COULD cause violence if the child DOES NOT know better meaning that he/she shouldn’t be playing in the first place or a person with mental problems that still gets to play video games. The point made earlier about Japan is a good one, more people (I don’t know the population but if their smaller then think ratio of those that play often then play very little or non) in Japan play video games than us and they have a much smaller crime rate. –continued-

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:34 PM
    userpay
  • userpay

    It’s probably only M because of the crack down after the Vice City “coffee” mod that WAS ghost data meaning that there was no way to access it until someone hacked it and made it a mod (I think that Halo 2 came out after the mod… I don’t remember the exact dates but were close). Jade Empire should probably be T because the closest I saw to gore was when you happen to cut someone’s head off. However I do agree with the M rating for Half-Life 2. –continued-

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:33 PM
    userpay
  • userpay

    The only M games I even have are Halo, Jade Empire, and Half-Life 2 and I was lucky to get those. It’s mostly the M games and games that have “suggestive themes” or sexual content that my parents (mostly my mom seeing as I’m normally with her when I get a game) say I can’t play. Personally I think Halo 2 should be rated T seeing as the only thing that you could call gore is the levels that are heavily infested with Flood and I don’t even think its bad enough to be M. –continued-

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:31 PM
    userpay
  • userpay

    Ok I don’t believe that video games actually CAUSE violence with normal people but they can give the person in question ideas for violence and possibly make him/her more aggressive. Take me, I’ve been picked on in school as far back as I can remember and to some degree was picked on at my church group as well. I’m also a very avid gamer and agree that it’s the parents fault for what their children play. For example, I’m 15 and parents mostly screen the games I buy. Sure there are many people I wouldn’t cry over but I’d only fight in self defense, heck I’ve gotten in trouble for fighting in self defense. –continued-

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:31 PM
    userpay
  • T3KK9

    Yes I agree that violent images, music, and games can cause certain indiviuals to go completely apeshit, but those people were screwed in the head to begin with. So maybe we should try to deal with these 'problem people' and keep them from obtaining violent material, and less time trying to ban all forms of violence from our kids eyes because whether you admit it or not, they can experience it anywhere, on the playground, on TV, in their 'crazy rap music', everywhere. People like Jack Thompson need to stop bubble-wrapping the world and realize that we can't protect our kids from everything, but we can actually try to pay attention to what they're doing and figure out "hey did my 14-year-old tommy just blow that videogame character's head off? this is BAD for him".

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:31 PM
    T3KK9
  • Dubalo7

    Cont -- Just as Thompson does when he is in the courtroom.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:29 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Again, I am not just talking about people going Ape shit (and neither was thompson during the debate) we are just talking about normal kids who after playing violent games are more likely to use violence to resolve conflicts. You are abstracting the true findings of the research.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:28 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Yeah sure, Thompson is an ass. But this is not the claim I'm trying to make and this is not what the debate was about. Sure it won't cause you to kill someone, but it does make your more likely to respond with aggression and to attempt to resolve conflict with aggression rather than other means. Although people aren't dying as a sole result of video games, Millions of children are learning to use aggression to solve problems. So instead of a handful of kids getting killed, millions are using aggression to resolve conflict.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:27 PM
    Dubalo7
  • T3KK9

    Yes I agree that violent images, music, and games can cause certain indiviuals to go completely apeshit, but those people were screwed in the head to begin with. So maybe we should try to deal with these 'problem people' and keep them from obtaining violent material, and less time trying to ban all forms of violence from our kids eyes because whether you admit it or not, they can experience it anywhere, on the playground, on TV, in their 'crazy rap music', everywhere. People like Jack Thompson need to stop bubble-wrapping the world and realize that we can't protect our kids from everything, but we can actually try to pay attention to what they're doing and figure out "hey did my 14-year-old tommy just blow that videogame character's head off? this is BAD for him".

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:24 PM
    T3KK9
  • T3KK9

    So in closing, (because i'm too damn hungry and tired of this to go on lol) Jack Thompson makes it sound like if you listen to angry rap music (like he's been doing for over a decade), or play violent videogames, you are genuinely 100% going to be psychopathic, violent lunatic.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:22 PM
    T3KK9
  • Dubalo7

    Lets look at the research on smoking and cancer. All the studies done on this (with human subjects) is correlational. It is unethical to assign people to smoke cigarettes for a long period of time. Yet when we take this evidence along iwth laboratory studies that expose animals to smoke (showing that they are more likely to get cancer than animals not exposed to smoke) we say that smoking causes cancer. But we really can't make that claim. The evidence showing that smoking causes cancer in humans is actually less founded (since their is no experimental evidence to show it) than the link between videogame violence and aggression. So do you deny that people who smoke are more likely to get cancer than those who don't?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:13 PM
    Dubalo7
  • T3KK9

    And to your credit yes I do believe that violent games can cause agressive behavior, but only to those who have true psychological problems and have a tendancy to be violent. Its like giving a lighter to a pyromaniac; if you provide a certain stimulus to one who would and will act on said stimuli, they are more likely to do exactly what that stimulus is providing.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:12 PM
    T3KK9
  • Dubalo7

    Lets look at the research on smoking and cancer. All the studies done on this (with human subjects) is correlational. It is unethical to assign people to smoke cigarettes for a long period of time. Yet when we take this evidence along iwth laboratory studies that expose animals to smoke (showing that they are more likely to get cancer than animals not exposed to smoke) we say that smoking causes cancer. But we really can't make that claim. The evidence showing that smoking causes cancer in humans is actually less founded (since their is no experimental evidence to show it) than the link between videogame violence and aggression. So do you deny that people who smoke are more likely to get cancer than those who don't?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:08 PM
    Dubalo7
  • T3KK9

    And to your credit yes I do believe that violent games can cause agressive behavior, but only to those who have true psychological problems and have a tendancy to be violent. Its like giving a lighter to a pyromaniac; if you provide a certain stimulus to one who would and will act on said stimuli, they are more likely to do exactly what that stimulus is providing.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:05 PM
    T3KK9
  • Dubalo7

    Lets look at the research on smoking and cancer. All the studies done on this (with human subjects) is correlational. It is unethical to assign people to smoke cigarettes for a long period of time. Yet when we take this evidence along iwth laboratory studies that expose animals to smoke (showing that they are more likely to get cancer than animals not exposed to smoke) we say that smoking causes cancer. But we really can't make that claim. The evidence showing that smoking causes cancer in humans is actually less founded (since their is no experimental evidence to show it) than the link between videogame violence and aggression. So do you deny that people who smoke are more likely to get cancer than those who don't?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:05 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Lets look at the research on smoking and cancer. All the studies done on this (with human subjects) is correlational. It is unethical to assign people to smoke cigarettes for a long period of time. Yet when we take this evidence along iwth laboratory studies that expose animals to smoke (showing that they are more likely to get cancer than animals not exposed to smoke) we say that smoking causes cancer. But we really can't make that claim. The evidence showing that smoking causes cancer in humans is actually less founded (since their is no experimental evidence to show it) than the link between videogame violence and aggression. So do you deny that people who smoke are more likely to get cancer than those who don't?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:04 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    As far as the real life comment. sure, experimental research lacks complete external validity (generalizability to real world). But when it is produced in concert with research looking at real world relationships (correlational and longitudinal relationships) we can say that playing violent games increases aggressive behavior in the real world.

    There are always costs and benefits of research. Correlational research allows us to get a more "real world" perspective on the effect but lacks the control of experimental research. The reverse is also true. But when both sources of information point to the same conclusion, it is said that that evidence is conclusive.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:01 PM
    Dubalo7
  • T3KK9

    And the fact is I would've been just as agressive, had I never picked up a single controller. When your fellow classmates and certain members of your family make you feel insignifcant, and worthless, you tend to be pretty upset or angry, if you will. So life experiece can be more of a profound factor on whether or not one would be a violent risk to soceity rather than some game that portrays the same violenece that they can see on TV and in film.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:00 PM
    T3KK9
  • Dubalo7

    Those that played the nonviolent game respond the same as those who weren't asked to play a game at all. So the people playing violent games had a change in their behavior. Due to the control of the study, it can be said that playing the violent game caused the aggressive behavior.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:59 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    T3KK9 -- Personal experience is great. It allows you to think about yourself. But your personal experience is biased. Memory is biased. You are motivated to believe that videogames don't cause aggression because you want to believe that. An individual persons account of their behavior does not hold up when you put it against studies that were run using a large number of participants and exhibiting sound emprical methods. You need ot understand how research is conducted before you can say that experience is better than research

    These are not fact sheets or focus groups. This is experimental research (refer to my earliest posts to see how the research is actually conducted). Regular people are brought into the lab and randomly assigned to play a violent or nonviolent game. They are then tested with a measure of aggression. Those that played the game are more aggressive.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:57 PM
    Dubalo7
  • T3KK9

    Well wouldn't you say that personal experience tends to convey a more intimate and 'real-life' view on how one, whether they played violent videogames or not, would react to a certain situation rather than fact sheets and focus groups?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:54 PM
    T3KK9
  • Dubalo7

    Continued

    Drs. bushman and anderson and their colleagues have published dozens of studies on ths topic all reaching the same conclusion.

    I've read most of the research (I am also a social psychologist and I study aggression as well). It is very sound. It seems that there are very few dissenters in the psychological community. There are some, but none of them have published any reputable studies that deny the experimental research conducted by Bushman, Anderson and their colleagues.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:54 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Let me clarify why the research of Dr Anderson and Dr. bushman is unbiased. They are professors of psychology (Dr. Bushman at the University of Michigan and I believe Dr. Anderson is still at Iowa state). They acheived PhDs from reputable programs. They were taught the procedures for performing unbiased and empirically sound psychological reseach. When they do a study, they can't just publish it. It goes through a peer review process. This means that other reputable doctors in the field scrutinize their research to ensure that it is unbiased and that it conforms to principles of empirical research. No publication is ever accepted upon first draft. The manuscript is sent back to the authors to make any necessary changes (wording, methods, new studies requested by the reviewers) it is then resubmitted and scrutinized once again by another set of reviewers. All reviewers are blind to the authors of the article. If it passes all of this it is then published.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:51 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    T3KK9 -- So your aggression only came from your peers harassing you? really? well it does make sense that you would become aggressive from this. This does not deny the link between playing violent games and aggressive behavior. There is no one explanation for why someone will be violent. Sure you can attribute your aggression to the teasing, but you could also just as easily attribute it to the violent games you played. The lab studies consistently show that both peer rejection and violent games cause increased aggression. Likely what happened was that your peers gave you a chance to act out your aggression and playing violent video games made you more likely to respond with aggression than if you didn't play those games. Many kids get teased, not everyone acts out. The same logic that you are trying to use against my argument works against yours. I have solid experimental research to back up my claims. All you have is experience

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:41 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Druidblue -- Where are you finding your studies. The studies published by Drs. Bushman and Anderson are not biased studies. As far as your comments about gardening this is not how these studies are conducted. If you look to my earlier comments. Way on up there at the top, you will see how the research is actually conducted and how it shows a causal link between playing violent games and aggressive behavior.

    Mr. Thompson is not a experimental researcher, he is a lawyer. yes, he does overstate the case for court. I have said this many times. But his position does not deny the social psychological research that has been performed at universities across this country.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:37 PM
    Dubalo7
  • JaymEsch

    To prove my points: If I chose gardening as a hobby, and turned around and stabbed someone with a garden hoe, would Thompson be there suing hardware stores to ban production of gardening equipment?

    Of course not, that'd be insane. But it's the EXACT same concept as what he's doing, because he *does not know what he's talking about*. It is NOT the hobby that is the cause. It is the pre-existing mental instability that could be triggered by ANYTHING the person chose to do with their free time.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:31 PM
    JaymEsch
  • JaymEsch

    For the last time, video games do NOT cause real world violence. Any politically unbiased study that has been done has proven this beyond a doubt. Only conservatively mandated propoganda concludes that gaming triggers violence. Why is it that I haven't ever gone out and slaughtered people? Why have I not beaten up others, or even cut someone off in traffic? Hell, I don't even HONK at someone who cuts ME off in traffic. Yet I've played counter strike, Quake mods, Hitman, etc. for countless hours. Does the fact that I've recently been playing Oblivion mean I'm going to grab a sword and start romping through the streets killing people? It's sheer idiocy that can only be espoused by people who don't combine their IQs with wisdom.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:28 PM
    JaymEsch
  • T3KK9

    Dubalo, my agression stemmed from my peers constantly harassing and demeaning me over an extended period of time. The fact that I played violent videogames because i thought games like Mortal Kombat and Doom were 'cool' and they were honestly well made games from a developer's standpoint. When I played violent games when I was still in school. I diddn't feel as if "yeah billy you shoved me into the locker today, how do you like it with your head ripped off?" as I used Sub-Zero's fatality in various MK games. My MORALS told me that was wrong. I mean sure who hasn't dreamed of getting even with the bullies and all the aggressors that are constantly dealt at us during adolesence? But what stopped us from acting out? The realization that acting out would be WRONG.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:28 PM
    T3KK9
  • T3KK9

    Dubalo, my agression stemmed from my peers constantly harassing and demeaning me over an extended period of time. The fact that I played violent videogames because i thought games like Mortal Kombat and Doom were 'cool' and they were honestly well made games from a developer's standpoint. When I played violent games when I was still in school. I diddn't feel as if "yeah billy you shoved me into the locker today, how do you like it with your head ripped off?" as I used Sub-Zero's fatality in various MK games. My MORALS told me that was wrong. I mean sure who hasn't dreamed of getting even with the bullies and all the aggressors that are constantly dealt at us during adolesence? But what stopped us from acting out? The realization that acting out would be WRONG.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:15 PM
    T3KK9
  • Dubalo7

    They don't only target video games. For a long time they targeted TV. We live in a litigious society. When you can make a million by sueing someone, why not blame your problems on something else. No one forced all those people to start smoking. And even though its difficult to quit, many people have done so successfully. So should we sue the tobacco industry? Afterall, all they are doing is exactly what the VG industry is doing -- denying the link between their product and some negative outcome.

    In the psychological community, we target everything that causes aggressive behavior. We are an unbiased source. As far as the comment saying that all the research showing "transference" effects of violent media. I'd like to see his sources that refute the research performed by Brad Bushman and Craig Anderson. And no straw man arguments on this. I want actual experimental research that shows their conclusions to be wrong.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:13 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    T3KK9 - You didn't specifically act out the behaviors on the game, but were you more aggressive? You already stated you were aggressive in junior high. Now was this a precursor or a consequence of the game (likely it's both). I'm not saying that you will mimic the actions in the game. I'm saying you will be more aggressive. This is what the research supports. Participants who played violent games, acted more aggressively on other tasks when compared to those that played a nonviolent game, and those that played no game. Since the experiment took place with control over other variables (due to random assignemnt to condition), this means that the aggression was caused by playing the violent game. This is how psychological science works. This study has been replicated over and over again using different variables to measure aggression and with many different methods all pointing to the conclusion that playing violent games causes aggressive behavior.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:06 PM
    Dubalo7
  • BlackEagle3

    "they put all the blame on violence with video games...and tv or other media isnt violent? sounds like your targetting the youth's only fun"

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:04 PM
    BlackEagle3
  • BlackEagle3

    "they put all the blame on violence with video games...and tv or other media isnt violent? sounds like your targetting the youth's only fun"

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:01 PM
    BlackEagle3
  • Dubalo7

    Again, adam sessler did not make strong and compelling arguments. He mistated findings. He took evidence out of context and misrepresented the point of the debate.

    The question of the debate -- Do violent games cause real world aggression?

    Yes they do. Sure there are other factors in play. No one in the scientific community would ever doubt that. Drinking alcohol will increase your likelihood of responding aggressively. Being in the presence of a gun will increase your likelihood of responding aggressively, and yes playing a violent game will increase your likelihood of responding aggressivley.

    Sure aggression existed before pong, but aggression also existed before guns. But both VIOLENT (clarificaiton not all games iwll increase violence) games and guns will increase aggressive behavior.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:00 PM
    Dubalo7
  • T3KK9

    And to Dubalo7, I respect your position but the thing is you have got to be one truly sick and twisted individual to scheme and act out a violent episode based on what you saw on a videogame. And finally, my personal opinion, KIDS should not be playing games that are developed SPECIFICALLY FOR ADULTS.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:57 PM
    T3KK9
  • T3KK9

    and Dubalo7, I WAS anti-social, narcissistic, depressed, AND agressive in Jr.High all the way through high school. I never acted out the games I played, why would I? I KNEW that if I took off someones arm or whatnot ala Mortal Kombat, that arm or whatever would not go back on or I could kill that person, which was a BAD thing to do in my young angst-filled, depressed, passive-agressive,over-medicat ed psyche. What I'm trying to say is kind of dual-pronged here, so L337, just to put it out there; you're parents are genuine idiots for letting you play games such as the ones you do and completely ignoring the content, THEY are (not particularly of course) one of the main reasons Mr. Thompson is going on and on like an old windbag

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:56 PM
    T3KK9
  • T3KK9

    Now Dubalo7, I totally understand your position, and L337_Player, dude, you're 14.. how can your folks be cool with playing the games that you're playing when the rating ON THE BOX clearly states that those games are NOT FOR YOUR AGE GROUP, just like movies have ratings, so does that mean they're going to go let you see 'Saw 3' when its out? I hope to god not. Now i'm 23 and i've been playing games since I was 5, and YES I played violent games when I was probably too young to play them (my mom hated the fact that I loved to play Doom with my dad and she even forbid me from playing Mortal Kombat 2 when it was out).

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:54 PM
    T3KK9
  • Dubalo7

    Again, adam sessler did not make strong and compelling arguments. He mistated findings. He took evidence out of context and misrepresented the point of the debate.

    The question of the debate -- Do violent games cause real world aggression?

    Yes they do. Sure there are other factors in play. No one in the scientific community would ever doubt that. Drinking alcohol will increase your likelihood of responding aggressively. Being in the presence of a gun will increase your likelihood of responding aggressively, and yes playing a violent game will increase your likelihood of responding aggressivley.

    Sure aggression existed before pong, but aggression also existed before guns. But both VIOLENT (clarificaiton not all games iwll increase violence) games and guns will increase aggressive behavior.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:41 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Again, adam sessler did not make strong and compelling arguments. He mistated findings. He took evidence out of context and misrepresented the point of the debate.

    The question of the debate -- Do violent games cause real world aggression?

    Yes they do. Sure there are other factors in play. No one in the scientific community would ever doubt that. Drinking alcohol will increase your likelihood of responding aggressively. Being in the presence of a gun will increase your likelihood of responding aggressively, and yes playing a violent game will increase your likelihood of responding aggressivley.

    Sure aggression existed before pong, but aggression also existed before guns. But both VIOLENT (clarificaiton not all games iwll increase violence) games and guns will increase aggressive behavior.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:33 PM
    Dubalo7
  • LupisLupine

    Jack Thompson - 0
    "Middle Guy" (I forget his name) - 5
    Adam Sessler - 79,000,000,000,000,001

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:28 PM
    LupisLupine
  • JaymEsch

    Thompson (he does not deserve the respect of a "Mr." from me due to his harmful messages) was certainly bested bt Adam Sessler's strong and valid arguments. If not for the time constraints of the show, Adam would indeed have reduced Thompson to reveal his less tempered side, as anyone who had read his hate-filled messages of religious zealotry is aware.

    Thompson- control your own family, but don't you dare presume to force your "morality" and beliefs upon others. Each individual is capable of making their own choices without your interference in attempting to determine what is "acceptable" for everyone else that is not you.

    Adam- bravo.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:23 PM
    JaymEsch
  • JaymEsch

    Thompson (he does not deserve the respect of a "Mr." from me due to his harmful messages) was certainly bested bt Adam Sessler's strong and valid arguments. If not for the time constraints of the show, Adam would indeed have reduced Thompson to reveal his less tempered side, as anyone who had read his hate-filled messages of religious zealotry is aware.

    Thompson- control your own family, but don't you dare presume to force your "morality" and beliefs upon others. Each individual is capable of making their own choices without your interference in attempting to determine what is "acceptable" for everyone else that is not you.

    Adam- bravo.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:15 PM
    JaymEsch
  • JaymEsch

    5.) Gaming does not beget violent tendencies any moreso than gardening or customizing cars as a hobby. If gaming did not exist, the same people who suffer from the mental disorders that cause them to participate in a Columbine or other societally intolerant action would still commit the same heinous acts, albeit with different triggers. Perhaps the kids who attack their schoolmates would instead have been set off because their tomato plants wouldn't grow properly in their garden... it's not the hobby that creates the violence, it's the pre-existing stimulae, including parenting and environment, that cause the problems.

    -continued-

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:14 PM
    JaymEsch
  • JaymEsch

    4.) Gaming simply serves as a scapegoat for societal woes from those who suffer from a generational lack of understanding the technology and its role in modern living. How many times have you heard someone say "When are you going to grow out of gaming?" Why is it that no one ever asks anyone over 50 "When are you going to grow out of watching Television?" Gaming is simply a new cultural activity feared through lack of understanding by the elder generations.

    -continued-

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:13 PM
    JaymEsch
  • JaymEsch

    3.) It is ALWAYS the parents' responsibility to supervise their kids' activities. Bully, while not a product I would personally purchase or choose to play, is not something being forced upon unwilling children. Parents can refuse to allow their children to purchase or play the product, or exact punishment upon their children. They can call the parents of their childrens' friends and state in no uneven terms that they are not allowed to play such a game while visiting, and visit the house to make sure this is being enforced. There are always steps available for parents to control their children.

    -continued-

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:11 PM
    JaymEsch
  • JaymEsch

    As a 34 year old software developer with full knowledge of gaming concepts, I am an expert in this matter. I was moved watching this high quality edition of The Loop to give my peremptory points on the matter as follows.

    1.) Games are not a "kids only" topic. The average age is 29. That means as many over 29 are playing as under. This age is quickly rising every few years.

    2.) Media violence transferal has been repeatedly disproven time and time again through unbiased, scientific studies. hompson's associated "studies" are politicized with the same conservative slant that is destroying the U.S. and removing our individual freedoms each and every day.

    -continued-

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:10 PM
    JaymEsch
  • DanTheLyon

    Well I have to say that Adam Sessler is a true hero for having to up with that jack hole...I am sure G4 will have another video game violence special during the release Bully in October. Hopefully we can see a better debate. I mean with all the other factors in the world that contribute to violence, video games are a small contributor. How about this war we are in, that is pretty big in comparison to a video game. It all comes down to one point…it’s up to the parent to allow what their children can play or not. There is a rating system for parents to follow and children cannot buy violent videogames without a parent. So if any parent has a problem with videogames then don’t buy it for your kids. The government should not tell me what I can or cannot play…

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:00 PM
    DanTheLyon
  • Mcsnuff

    Jake Thompson is wasting his time!
    There was a time when people protest against nude magazine back in the 60s, and took Penthouse to court and did they win? No. Then we got ciggs, beer, and gun company. Many people protest against these companies and did they stop them even though in the wrong hands they KILL? Nope. The music and movie bussiness, I remember like ten years ago when there where kids who found their fathers HAND GUN and shot their brother/sister or friend because they were reacting a role in a movie they once saw or because of rap/rock music, and where they able to do anything to these bussiness? Again no. So what makes Jake think he can take violence out of video games? When we know the game industrie is a multihundred million dollor company. He has no chance. Why? Because like all of the bussiness and companies they have what the people want and as long as the people buy it they will never stop selling it.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 11:57 AM
    Mcsnuff
  • Dubalo7

    So just to all the people that are blindly posting saying how good of a job sessler did.

    Sure Jack Thompson didn't do a good job representing the research. He wasn't given a chance to. And anyway he is a lawyer. He doesn't do research.

    Again I refer you to my earlier posts where I discuss the actual research on video game violence and aggression. The research clearly shows that even though violence existed before pong, playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior.

    As for the effect size (that is the relationship between playing violent vidoe games and aggression) it is on the same order as the link between smoking cigarrettes and getting cancer. I doubt you will deny that.

    Adam sessler doesn't know his stuff. Jack thompson was just set up to fail at the hands of a biased "debate".

    Posted: August 11, 2006 11:47 AM
    Dubalo7
  • misterclean4196

    I vote Jack Thompson is The Douche of the Universe

    Posted: August 11, 2006 11:44 AM
    misterclean4196
  • CplHeadshot

    Jesh.. did Jack Thompson know what he was talking about or listen to him self when he talks?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 11:23 AM
    CplHeadshot
  • KSilver

    Jack Thompson: 0 Adam Sessler: 1

    Posted: August 11, 2006 11:21 AM
    KSilver
  • VeryLiberating

    Man, that episode of the Loop was so good. best one I've seen so far. Adam Sessler is the man.

    http://www.VeryLiberating.co m

    Posted: August 11, 2006 11:08 AM
    VeryLiberating
  • DetectiveBooby

    Hmm, is it just me or does JT look really dirty.

    Like he didnt take a shower and didnt shave....Your on t.v.....cant you at least take a shower

    Posted: August 11, 2006 11:05 AM
    DetectiveBooby
  • Midnightsunxx

    Sessler might seem like an idiot sometimes when he acts out stuff in X-Play but he really knows his stuff here. Jack got killed in several points because he can't word anything nor does he really know what he's talking about. Seems that all his points were countered by Sessler and not only that but even Friedler(sp?) finished Thompson off with a common sense statement.

    Favorite point of this whole thing was Sessler's "Yet this type of violence has been going on since before the release of even Pong."
    Golden.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 10:58 AM
    Midnightsunxx
  • Dubalo7

    nothingislogical -- Klebold and Harris lived in a suburb. They had a pretty normal home life.

    A broken home isn't necessary to engender homocidal tendencies in a child. I believe that most of the school shootings actually occur in middle class suburban/rural schools. Not the inner city.

    Still, I'm not saying videogames are the only cause. VGs are a risk factor, however. Compared to the others, it is also something that we can exert more control over. Kids will be rejected by their peers no matter what. Some homes will not function as well as others because the parents have to work 2 jobs. But we can exert control over the games our children play. This is why they are attacked. Now sueing game companies is not the answer. Paying out those settlements is like pocket change to them. But encouraging them to exhibit more control and advising parents to be more careful could help.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 10:31 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    nothingislogical -- Klebold and Harris lived in a suburb. They had a pretty normal home life.

    A broken home isn't necessary to engender homocidal tendencies in a child. I believe that most of the school shootings actually occur in middle class suburban/rural schools. Not the inner city.

    Still, I'm not saying videogames are the only cause. VGs are a risk factor, however. Compared to the others, it is also something that we can exert more control over. Kids will be rejected by their peers no matter what. Some homes will not function as well as others because the parents have to work 2 jobs. But we can exert control over the games our children play. This is why they are attacked. Now sueing game companies is not the answer. Paying out those settlements is like pocket change to them. But encouraging them to exhibit more control and advising parents to be more careful could help.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 10:29 AM
    Dubalo7
  • nothingislogical

    To make my point short, if one million people buy a piece of violent media (be it a game, move, cd, whatever) and one or two people go out and commit acts of violence and blame it on that piece of media, it's not that piece of media's fault. If you place blame squarely on the shoulders of that piece of media, you're not taking into effect the other 999,999 or 999,998 people that bought that same piece of media who haven't gone out and done any of these things. I'm not discrediting these things for giving a hint of bad influence. If i had kids, I wouldn't want them playing violent games or listening to the music I do or watching the movies I like. But why are we blaming everything accept the parents?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 10:23 AM
    nothingislogical
  • Dubalo7

    Cigarettes can't be proven to cause cancer. There are many other factors. Still we have no problem sueing big tobacco. Sure more people are killed each year by cigarettes than by violent game players. But it does still increase aggression (which was the actual topic of the debate/ see my earlier posts for evidence). There are also many cases where the murderers directly mimic the behavior of the characters in the game.

    So what is the video game industry culpable for. Well I think it is their right to produce the games. They have done a pretty good job with the ESRB as well. But for them to continually deny the link, gives parents a false sense of security. So in this sense, I hold the VG industry (and the media that reports on these issues) culpable.

    As another point. Don't just consider the killings due to violent games. Consider the children that are now learning that violence is a good way to resolve conflict. Think about what that means for them later in life.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 10:20 AM
    Dubalo7
  • nothingislogical

    Dubalo7, I do realize what you are saying. I wasn't nessescarily trying to discredit what you were saying. The point i'm trying to make is that if you look at situations where violent video games/music/other forms of violent entertainment are to "blame", the kids usually come from bad home lives. Now what "bad" implies does vary. The parents may be abusive on either a physical or verbal level. These kids may come from a broken home. The list runs on and on. Now maybe these forms of violent media MAY have some effect on what they're doing, BUT when these acts of violence occur, everyone looks for a scapegoat instead of looking at where these kids came from and blaming it on how they were raised.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 10:19 AM
    nothingislogical
  • popsickle59

    now this sounds crazy but let's try and see his perspective.
    1. "Doom trained them to kill"
    logic: Oh I'm so familiar with the famous keyboard based gun.
    2."games like this cause real world violence"
    logic: Oh no it isn't kids shuned and negleted by parents to point of find other sources of love and attention in gangs and music. Now not like the music you and I hear but, music that's so throughly distrbing with it's violence and killing based lyrics that it pushes someone off the edge of pure logic and sanity. plus didn't we have like wars and stuff far before tv based electronics were even on the radar.

    3."the UK has laws against gruetous violence in games"
    logic: And the UK is doing just swell now ain't it. Plus i don't remember us living in the UK.

    The fact is his argument has no logic and he is only holding on to what worked in court. like the real world is a court room.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 9:24 AM
    popsickle59
  • L337_Player

    I don't blame anyone for this but the game industry is basically not even trying to develop other genres of games because of public demand Im guessing, people want to fight there friends in DMs' and Frag them online and things, rather than play Neopets:the Darkest Fairy
    They jsut keep churning out either a WWII game or a crappy platformer or something like RE:Deadly Silence which is practically the worst game since E.T. was made =/
    so its either a horrible stupid game or a war game nowadays, not much variety huh?
    and if they aren't an FPS or hack and slash then there just a stupid crappy movie spinoff like.... Over the Hedge, if anything makes me mad it is the horrid controls is some games that frustrate me not the actual shooting or hitting.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 9:14 AM
    L337_Player
  • L337_Player

    I haven't heard of the new version, myself actually
    I know what you mean about the death aspect, same thing in any FPS like BF2 or CS or something, I wouldn't think hitting a zombie in something like Dead Rising would result in someone actually acting it out though, I would think that is the point of the game to just act it out there so you wouldn't have to go down to the local mall and throw a trashcan at some guy, I guess I could see how you would might want to try it, but majority dont do it or to my knowledge, but I can vouch for you one violent games over non violent games, Non violent games they aren't enjoyable, I don't really want to play Myst over BF2 though you know what I mean?
    IF they would actually try to make an interesting Non Violent game maybe I would play it rather than popping in The GodFather, but its like the industry is just developing on type of game Violent and M rated, I am not blaming them for anything, I am fine with that.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 9:04 AM
    L337_Player
  • knighthawk42

    I understand the plight of the video game clerk. Too many times has a parent agreed to by a game I thought was too mature. I also rember that my mom treated me how I acted. If I acted 22 I was treated that way and told why that was. I am agravatted that the spotlight is always on Rockstar though. The "Hot Coffie(sp)" mod as I heard it was only able to be reached by hacking your PS2. The reason this agravates me is "God of War". My favorite game has Blood, gore, violence, and nudity. With out any cheats, or anything. Thing is most parents do not even know it.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:55 AM
    knighthawk42
  • Dubalo7

    L337_player -- sure maybe people do believe that and that is one of the reasons they buy these games. And I'll tell you that acting out aggression doesn't reduce aggression, it actually just begets more aggression. This was something that Freud got terribly wrong.

    Still though, the order of magnitude that people buy violent games compared to nonviolent games is so much greater than can be accounted for by people wanting to vent their frustrations.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:51 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    L337_Player - the new version of the game is actually selling really well and is quite popular, and it is still being used to recruit. Sure some people do want to go to the army, and they'd be likely to pick up this game. But still, the game is not war. If you die, you can come back to life and play again. This is not afforded to you in real war.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:48 AM
    Dubalo7
  • L337_Player

    And why are violent video games so popular...hmm I don't know you've stumped me, damnit lol =D
    maybe its just because people need to take out aggression in a passive interactive environment because they know they can't do it in real life, that could be a related reason eh?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:46 AM
    L337_Player
  • Dubalo7

    Oh and to nothingislogical. Those were just a few of the risk factors that I put up there. There are lots more. Think of behavior as a coctail. You can make a lot of drinks that taste differently and are made up of a lot of different ingredients, but they still result in the same outcome -- you get drunk.

    Not everyone who has these risk factors will kill someone. They will be more likely to be aggressive than others that don't have these same experiences though. Other factors will be protective such as good parents (yes to all of you who's parents taught you good morals you are going to do just fine). But some kids don't have these protective factors and are exposed to a lot of the risk factors. This makes it warrant for caution. When we do find that something causes aggression, it's not wise to outright censor it. It is wise however, to err on the side of caution.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:45 AM
    Dubalo7
  • L337_Player

    Yes that is true Dubalo7...unless you still had dial up, lol
    They did actually send out a disc rated T
    and you can't exactly call it "fun" because I found it very tedious and repetitive myself, If I was looking to join the Army I think it would be a good resource to have, it takes you through boot camp, and then you do missions or something I dunno it was boring alright, it does show you what you have to do if you decide to join though, and once they get to boot camp wouldn't you think it wouldn't be fun anymore?
    I know I would hate to run miles at like 4 in the morning and then get shipped off to Iraq, War is not glamorized that much, we have the news to contrast the fun of the game =/

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:38 AM
    L337_Player
  • Maximus213

    I REALLY think there should be a longer debate on this between Adam and Jack-off! I wrote a page long article and editorial on this subject my junior year in high school and it was like seeing some of the points in my articles made manifest by Adam in The Loop. This was by far THE....BEST...LOOP....EVER!

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:38 AM
    Maximus213
  • Dubalo7

    I think another point to be brought up here is -- why do people enjoy violent games? Why do the sell on such a larger order than more nonviolent games?

    Yes there are some nonviolent games out there that have been successful (e.g. katamari damacy and tetris). But still, the greatest market seems to be for violent games.

    I've seen studies reported that show that increasing the realism and gore factor of a game doesn't really change subjective interpretation of how fun the game is (they compared MK2 through MK4 and found that although people rated MK4 as more violent and realistic, they still enjoyed MK2 just as much).

    So why is it. Well one possible factor is the controversy itself. People do show reactance. They want to do what they are told not to. This makes violent games highly desired by consumers althought people don't really seem to enjoy them anymore than nonviolent games.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:34 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    I think a good point was raised here about America's Army. Now I think that this is more threatening than any of the other violent games. The Army has not hidden the fact that they use it as a recruitment tool for the army. They have people sitting there at tournaments waiting to sign people up. And if you saw the NBC news report on this, they actually went to a tournament and people signed up for a 4-year hitch right there.

    But playing a game is not the same as being in the "shit" in a real war. This game gives adolescents the perspective that war is fun, leading children to sign up for the army when they don't consider everything about it.

    And what's even more troubling is that the first version of this game was readily available online for free. So no one needed to check to see if these kids were of age or that they would consider the ramfications of playing this game. That is truly irresponsible behavior.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:27 AM
    Dubalo7
  • LunaticMonk

    Well, all of this talking and debating is going to get no one no where because nobody is going to change their mind and people are just going to keep flashing their research around about the supposed link between video games and how they inadvertantely cause the death of innocents.

    BEWARE OF VIDEO GAMES!
    THEY ARE THE SPAWN OF SATAN!
    IF YOU PLAY VIDEO GAMES YOU ARE A VIOLENT PERSON!
    THERE FORE YOU KILL PEOPLE FOR NO GOOD REASON!

    HEAVY SARCASM!

    Debate away, I go bye bye 8)

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:24 AM
    LunaticMonk
  • LunaticMonk

    HOORAY nothingislogical! That is a good way of saying what I was trying to say. Just because you play violent video games and all of that stuff does not make you a violent/aggressive person.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:13 AM
    LunaticMonk
  • L337_Player

    ...wow, I've had excellent training through videogames to realistically murder someone in an extremely violent manor.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 8:10 AM
    L337_Player
  • nothingislogical

    sorry for the double post

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:59 AM
    nothingislogical
  • nothingislogical

    I like violent video games, horror movies, heavy metal music, and pro wrestling, AND I was picked on in school (not really in high school though). According to studies, I should probably be one violent person but i'm not. I'm one of the most laid back people you could ever meet. Why? Because I know right from wrong. What's real and what's not. What should be taken as ENTERTAINMENT and what is reality. Because my parents took responsibility for raising me right.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:58 AM
    nothingislogical
  • L337_Player

    I'll cilmb somewhere high and chuck snarks everywhere. Then when I get enough exp I will PvP the presidents bodyguards, spawn kill Jack Thompson, then type some cheat code in the console to become invincible. Then I will insert more credits just incase. Then the SWAT Team comes in.. I'll chuck plasma grenade's on their backs, then launch WANMILLION nukes at their country. I'll command my lemming's to form a defensive perimeter whilst I then go to rescue Princess Zelda from the Evil Ganondorf, and lay a smackdown on his ass. Last of all I will eat a mushroom, grow in size, and stomple all over the white house, then I will go raid New York.
    hows that sound to you all who think of video games convert to real life violence?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:57 AM
    L337_Player
  • SargeSmash

    Wow, this was weak. Adam Sessler didn't have a clue. I'm a gamer, but he didn't say one thing that really made sense, unless you are a complete diehard convinced that games can do absolutely no harm at all.

    Yes, certain games can cause an increase in violent tendencies. Yes, bad games (as well as movies and music) desensitize us to violence. But do they CAUSE violence? It's hard to prove, because there are usually multiple factors, and no one can know the things that really go on in someone else's mind. So what we have is a number of people that say, "Oh, it can't be empirically proven at all, so it can't be true." Seems the exact argument is taken in reverse in the case of something like evolution vs. creationism, where neither can be proven, but one or the other is accepted as true, anyway.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:56 AM
    SargeSmash
  • nothingislogical

    I like violent video games, horror movies, heavy metal music, and pro wrestling, AND I was picked on in school (not really in high school though). According to studies, I should probably be one violent person but i'm not. I'm one of the most laid back people you could ever meet. Why? Because I know right from wrong. What's real and what's not. What should be taken as ENTERTAINMENT and what is reality. Because my parents took responsibility for raising me right.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:56 AM
    nothingislogical
  • nothingislogical

    I personally agree with Gryffian. The parents play a heavy factor in this issue. My parents taught me right from wrong and what's real and what's not from an early age. I remember being about 7 years old (i'm 19 now) and watching my dad play the original Doom and even playing some of it myself. I've always liked violent video games (though that's not to say I don't like any other types of games either) and why i'm not rotting away in a prison right now for killing someone? Because my parents taught me right from wrong and I know that hacking someone up with a chainsaw a la Evil Dead or shooting someone's head off like in Grand Theft Auto is WRONG.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:56 AM
    nothingislogical
  • L337_Player

    Oh well, I might just play some Counter Strike now to practice murdering the president with only a flashbang and a bowie knife. Or shall I play America's Army? Seeing as it was a recruitment program for the US Army. Damn man if I get good on America's Army I should fly through basic training in real life! Using the Portal gun noone could catch me, I'll set traps all round the place, suspend cars in the air with rope and release them when people are underneath.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:56 AM
    L337_Player
  • Gryffian

    by the by, props to Dubalo7 and all his research. You know your stuff man.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:45 AM
    Gryffian
  • Gryffian

    by the by, props to Dubalo7 and all his research. You know your stuff man.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:44 AM
    Gryffian
  • WaffleWarrior

    Why can't Jack just get cancer or sumthin and die already? One less asshole we hafta deal with. Adam is my hero!! w00t

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:42 AM
    WaffleWarrior
  • Gryffian

    I don’t think anyone here is asking for the sales of M rated games to be legal for minors. There is a reason they are rated M. M stands for the word Mature and if you aren’t Mature as of yet, IE: 17 or younger, then you shouldn’t be playing M rated games. Now I know I am going to get 500 fifteen year olds yelling at me that they are mature, but for those of us over that age, I think we can all agree that for the most part, M rated games should be for those who ARE mature.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:42 AM
    Gryffian
  • Gryffian

    Of course don’t take my posts to meant that I support Jack in any way… Slinging lawsuits around is no way to make change. All that really accomplishes is getting you in the paper and on the news, which honestly is what I think he intends with all that crap. However, that doesn’t justify it. Companies like RockStar and so forth make M rated games for the 20-35 year old in all of us. Now I personally don’t care for the Grand Theft Auto games myself, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be made. I mean I personally love the Silent Hill games and we all know how graphic those are, but again, they are rated M for a reason, because they WERENT made for kids. They were made for adults to play.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:39 AM
    Gryffian
  • Gryffian

    For Jacks sake at least he didn’t get heated over the topic while on the show, he remained calm, even though I'm sure being on the show was a hard thing, I mean seriously, the guy is like the most hated person in the video game world, and with some good reason, but still. Adam, take a chill pill. Your not going to convince anyone to agree with you by coming across like a jerk. All you succeed in doing is making them put up defensive walls and further their backing away from a decent position.
    Thanks G4 for the great debate.
    Gryffian

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:35 AM
    Gryffian
  • Gryffian

    At least in our store, we enforce the age rating policy. Oh, and just so Jack knows, our company does have a policy in place where we are NOT able to sell M rated games to minors and at least for our store we follow that policy. I see where Adam was coming from with his comments, but dude, seriously, you need to lay off the caffeine bro, you sounded like a freaking idiot out there. You could tell you didn’t like Jack and it came through in your comments

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:33 AM
    Gryffian
  • Gryffian

    Lets face it, if kids have parents that suck, they might as well hand their kids a gun. Do I think that children should be able to play games like God of War and Grand Theft Auto… no of course not. In fact the whole statement that Jack said about how 50% of kids can walk into a store and buy an M rated game is just silly. I work at a GameStop, we don’t sell to under age kids. However, these kids who I say NO to, do go get their parents who when I inform about the rating of the game, the usual response is, “I know! They play these things all the time, just give me the game!” Now, I have to sell it to the parents, even though I know the kids are playing it. So basically I would say MOST of the fault lies with the parents.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:32 AM
    Gryffian
  • Gryffian

    I work for GameSpot as a 3rd key manager. I will openly admit that I am a Christian and am glad that I am. I am also an avid videogame player as well. I keep up to date on new releases and try to keep in the know about the gaming industry. I have a degree in Psychology and am working on my Masters in Counseling. Jack does have some good points about the connection between real world violence and violent entertainment, but like the middle guy (dang can no one remember his name) said, a lot of this has to do with parents. One thing the study didn’t take into its calculation (I’ve read and studied the report) was the children’s home life.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:31 AM
    Gryffian
  • Dubalo7

    As for people saying that there is no difference between watching a violent movie and playing a violent game I present another study that will be in publication soon.

    In this study they compared 1st and 3rd person games. In the 3rd person game you play as another person playing the game. In the first person, the perspective shifts so that now it looks as if you are weilding the gun. What happened when they measured aggression after ward? Well those playing the 1st person game were more violent. So the greater perception that it was you enacting the behavior, the greater your tendency to show post game aggression.

    So think about a movie, you don't have control over the characters action. Compare this to a game where you are acting out the aggression. You may not be holding the gun directly, but you are pulling the trigger.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 7:02 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    as far as playing a game, running into a school and shooting people. It will come down to a multitude of factors. But you can't say that somehting else "caused" the effect without accepting the influence of the other factors. Look at Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the columbine shooters). They did play violent games. They were also rejected by peers (rejection is a strong predictor of aggression in research). They were also narcissists (who are more likely to be aggressive). They had access to guns (the mere presence of guns increases aggressive behavior). So which one was it? It was all of them put together. If you do play violent games what does this mean. Well if you don't show any other risk factors, you're probably ok. YOu might react more violently every once in a while, but you probably won't go grab a gun to resolve it. Think about every child out there playing these games. Some of them will meet a lot of these factors. Why add more violent games on top of this?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 6:53 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    As for those of you who said that you play games and that you are not aggressive. Well there are always going to be exceptions to the rule. But just as likely is the fact that you don't notice that you are more aggressive than others. If you play games you probably hang out with other aggressive children, so baseline rates of aggression will already be high and not as noticeable. Also if you are motivated to believe that playing games don't cause aggression, you will easily generate memories when you weren't aggressive (not thinking of those times that you lost control). Your mind, as well as everyone elses mind, is a tricky little bastard. Don't be so quick to use anecdotal evidence to discount research.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 6:43 AM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    I'm so glad to see that some people did actually read my earlier posts and considered it as a possibility. Let me take a second to refer to some of the after comments.

    The ESRB is a good point. This is a self-regulated committee and I commend the video game industry for putting this in to place. Nevertheless, some parents don't follow these guidelines. SOme of the blame for this is the media. THe media has continued to suggest that the effect is not as large (or as is the case with AOTS that it doesn't even exist). Some parents who here this disregard the ESRB ratings, and blame other factores (e.g. he must be having trouble at school) rather than the game. The media is responsible for informing parents, and they haven't done a good job on this issue.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 6:42 AM
    Dubalo7
  • cadew

    JACK THOMPSON JUST GOT PONED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

    Posted: August 11, 2006 6:28 AM
    cadew
  • L337_Player

    Vandrigar
    good point on how anyone under 12 shouldn't own a 360 lol I am gonna get one but I have to work my ass off for one, yeah OMG my parents arent buying one for me What a shock because we all know someone my age has to have there parents buy everything for them, damn people always think someone else buys things for me like I am incapable of doing it myself, I hate people like that.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 6:24 AM
    L337_Player
  • LunaticMonk

    Yeah I have to agree with you Vandrigar that was pretty stupid when he said that they used DOOM to train for the shooting. I mean we all know that DOOM is the best way to learn how to shoot a gun properly. (HEAVY, HEAVY SARCASM)

    Posted: August 11, 2006 5:33 AM
    LunaticMonk
  • LunaticMonk

    He (Jack) acts like everyone that plays games is going to suddenly turn into a homicidal maniac and go rampaging through the streets with a chainsaw hacking people to bits. I play the whole spectrum of games (E-M) and I have never felt the urge to go rampaging through my school blowing peoples heads off. People that claim that video games pushed them off the edge and caused them to kill someone are either A) Lying or B) They were already plenty screwed up to begin with and were going to kill someone regardless. It's just so STUPID to think that a video game can push someone to go run somebody over or kill them in some other disgustingly horrible way. It's a VIDEO GAME, it's not real. If someone can't distinguish between a video game and reality... then I just don't know what to think.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 5:31 AM
    LunaticMonk
  • Vandrigar

    And to agree with Mark and "The_Lone_Gunman"

    PARENTS ARE THE PROBLEM!! WHo is buying the games? THE PARENTS! If your are under 18 walk into a EB or gamestop and try to buy a M rated game, your not going to get it.

    And those shooters at columbine had Uzis and Mac10s how the hell did they get those?

    oh thats right daddy didnt use a gun lock.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 5:28 AM
    Vandrigar
  • Vandrigar

    The columebine killing was not from "doom"

    Most of the kids were on anti-deprestents whitch
    EVEN TODAY still cause suicidel emotions
    (please pardon my bad grammar)

    the URL go A little more in dept of one of the killers.

    http://www.breggin.com/luvox .html

    Posted: August 11, 2006 5:25 AM
    Vandrigar
  • The_Lone_Gunman

    Parrents need to take a lot more of the responciblity (not a good speller) for the effect of ANY media on their children. They have got to set limits for theiy kids or atleast come to tearms with them and check on them from time to time to make sure it isnt having a bad effect on them. I cave to bring up Columbine simply because of the immediate attact on video games and other violent media. First and foremost, how did the students get the games and the other "violent influences"? Next, HOW IN THE NAME OF ZEUS' BUTTHOLE DID THEY GET THE GUNS?!??! Their would never had been a problem if they had been asked to show I.D. once along the way of getting their weapons this whole tragedy may have been stopped. To wrap this up; Games are nbot the problem The PARRENTS are the problem

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:43 AM
    The_Lone_Gunman
  • The_Lone_Gunman

    How? How do the "children of America" get any of the items in question. Any game that has been rated by the E.S.R.B. has strict age limits. But nomatter how much information you can fit on the box of a game there will always be an "ignorant" parrent. They will not read the labling, and gladly purchase any game their little child wants. I have withnessed firsthand a mom buying FOR HER NINE YEAR OLD the game DeadRising. First off, any child under the age of 12 should not have access to an X-BOX 360. At the most they should have a Play Station 2. I might have missed something but I have not seen a single game that has come out on the 360 after its release that dose not have violence in atleast 35% of it.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 4:40 AM
    The_Lone_Gunman
  • simil3

    almost feels like the in your pants segment was longer than the debate taken place in the loop. it was too damn short. like all the other suggestions above, they either need to extend it or make an entirely new show that pertains to controversial issues concerning gamers.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 3:33 AM
    simil3
  • L337_Player

    It's not considered a "free pass" to let me do certain things, they have the power to not let me do it, but they aren't as concerned as Jack Thompson is, they know what I play, and what is in it, as a matter of fact, I actually show my mom and dad some of the things I do in the game, like in RE:4 I hooked my PS2 up in the living room and showed them what the game was about, I blew the head off of a few cows even, I can control myself fine when I play an M game
    What about letting a T rated game into the hands of an 8 year old, are people concerned with that?
    It's pretty much the same mechanic as that, to me, and I think you meant Intended.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:57 AM
    L337_Player
  • L337_Player

    Doyle005
    I understand it, and now your saying an M rated game is related to Porn and drinking?
    They can restrict certain things ya know, because they buy me an M rated game doesn't mean there going to let me look at porn and drink, I know they are responsible for me, and that is awesome, but that doesn't really come into play here ya know, I dont get how me playing a mature game is anywhere close to me running someone over, that makes no sense in this topic at all.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:55 AM
    L337_Player
  • L337_Player

    I somewhat agree about the passive nature of music and movies and things but, just because a game is interactive doesn't mean it will cause violence after all isn't that the reason that they are there, video games are just supposed to be fun, they are there to prevent anger, GTA is great in my opinion, would you rather have someone go out in the streets and steal a car or just have them be immersed in GTA for a while?
    My point being a game is there to prevent aggression or jusut be plain fun, c'mon I bet even you have played a violent game or even Mr.Jack T. and why would you possibly do this?
    Because it is fun isn't it, games arent supposed to be causing this type of debate, they are just there, you don't have to like it, but there are many who do, im sorry how I came off on this subject, I just feel strongly about this topic.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:31 AM
    L337_Player
  • L337_Player

    Dubalo7
    I am sorry to be so against you, I really didn't read through your comments and take a minute to think through them, you actually did have some very good information, I agree with some things you are saying but not all, I think there is definately a risk factor to violence like there is for cancer. i agree 100% with your 4th comment, just because its a video game network though doesn't mean that we are all just gonna say no, because we play them, I voted no, because I felt that they do not cause violence, not because I play games.
    I think that the people who voted no feel the same way, I dont really see how an M rated game can cause violence to be honest with you, it just sounds stupid to me.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:30 AM
    L337_Player
  • minimobster7

    violent video games don't make people do violent things but STUPID people are the ones causing all the violence; like say, a kid plays a gta game and he decides to act it out in RL... STUPID! and adam wins no contest jack is stupid also lol and the whole dunking heads in toilets thing,that was invented B4 i dunno, game boy maybe? and game boys dont have very violent,descriptive visuals but then again that bully game is just one things kids can get ideas from but like i said they are stupid to actually DO those things. (sorry for the long post)

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:23 AM
    minimobster7
  • FunBoy73

    L337_Player, do your parents let you drink beer and look at porn? I would guess not b/c that would make them 'irresponsible'. So why are they given a free pass that they allow you to play games that are attended for adults?

    Also I also never said that kids playing M rated games will be violent then those that do not. My point is that kids are being allowed to play games attended for adults. Just like age determines when you can drive, drink alcohol, and join the military.

    L337_Player, do you understand that parents are technically responsible for the act so their children. If a kid steals a car and runs someone over, the parents are responsible for their childs behavior.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:09 AM
    FunBoy73
  • L337_Player

    Wtf are all of you saying parents aren't resonsible for, I dont get what you mean, are you saying for a violent act by there child or something?
    you all sound like idiots babbling about this topic, the ESRB is a good thing, when I buy an M game my mother has to check it out, and the clerk points out the rating and makes sure it is okay, are you saying parents don't pay attetion to ratings?
    because the clerk does make it pretty damn clear, and they say exactly why aswell, so if the clerk says "This game is rated M for Gore, Sexual content, language"
    and the parent DOESN'T want there kid to be exposed to it then OMG they don't have to buy it OoooooOooo mysterious how that works out isnt it?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 2:01 AM
    L337_Player
  • L337_Player

    and might as well not shut my mouth now so
    Doyle005
    You did make a somewhat good point about parents, but you are once again thinking as my age group as a whole, not as individuals, So basically you just said what tdunc said about parents so you just told me that my parents are irresponsible because I play a violent game, I can see where your coming from but not every parent who buys there child an M rated game is irresponsible, so if I get an M rated game I should be punished?
    That is BS, you are right some parents are like that, but not every single parent of a teenage gamer, sounds like lots of you are very one minded about this topic, you can't say every person under the age of buying an M game is going to be more violent than someone who is old enough to buy one.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:59 AM
    L337_Player
  • LJMN

    Jack, no one cares what the laws in the UK are. Due to gun control laws criminals now break into occupied homes and commit acts of violence. Vikings and Pirates never played video games. Worry if they participate in paintball or Golden Gloves(armed/unarmed violence.) Playing video games would make the kid more effective for the US Army with weapons designed to operate like a video game. The game is going to make the kid a psycho, his up bringing may. Could you "really" go on record as saying anything positive about the game? Years ago I remember an college Professor who stated that although you heard the media say some psychologists believed porn contributed to sex crimes the truth was that there was no more porn in the homes of perpetrators than any other. They did in fact have more dairy foods than average in their fridges. So should we protest the proliferation of milk, cheese and ice cream????

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:52 AM
    LJMN
  • L337_Player

    and as Adam said I believe wasnt there violence before pong or any other game?
    you can't say they are going to cause violence because violence has always been, whos to say those kids behind the Columbine shooting didn't think of this before Doom?
    and to tdunc
    because I am not 3 years older means that I am going to kick someones ass, rather than someone who is 20 or 18
    I do agree with you that all gamers are being punished though, but you are kind of singeling out someone like me, so my parents are irresponsible and I am violent because I play God of War?
    is that what your saying, I am not violent and I have never been violent, or not because of a game, that was ignorant in my eyes, you were thinking like Jack Thompson, he thinks of gamers as a whole not as individuals, just because a few kids have played a violent game and done a violent act does not mean that I or any other person my age or near it will do something like that.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:44 AM
    L337_Player
  • L337_Player

    and as Adam said I believe wasnt there violence before pong or any other game?
    you can't say they are going to cause violence because violence has always been, whos to say those kids behind the Columbine shooting didn't think of this before Doom?
    and to tdunc
    because I am not 3 years older means that I am going to kick someones ass, rather than someone who is 20 or 18
    I do agree with you that all gamers are being punished though, but you are kind of singeling out someone like me, so my parents are irresponsible and I am violent because I play God of War?
    is that what your saying, I am not violent and I have never been violent, or not because of a game, that was ignorant in my eyes, you were thinking like Jack Thompson, he thinks of gamers as a whole not as individuals, just because a few kids have played a violent game and done a violent act does not mean that I or any other person my age or near it will do something like that.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:35 AM
    L337_Player
  • FunBoy73

    I believe that everyone on here makes interesting points. A few points I would like to make:

    1-Why was the ESRB not brought up? Bully will be rated M, which is 17+. So stores should not sell it to kids, if they do, fine them. Parents should not buy it for their kids. And if your kid somehow get $60 and buy the game...be a parent and PUNISH YOUR CHILD!!!! Adults need to be adults here.

    2-How can one train to commit mass murder by playing Doom or any other video game? Last time I checked, a gun is nothing like my 360 controller!!! I would say I was better trained to commit mass murder during my tour in Iraq in the early 90’s. Should I sue the Marines for this training???

    3-Is Jack on of those parents that blames Marylyn Manson for violence? If I remember correctly, people did the same thing in the 70’s with Black Sabbath.

    In short, parents…be parents!!! And let well adjusted adult gamers play any type of game that we choose. This witch hunt is crazy!!

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:26 AM
    FunBoy73
  • FunBoy73

    I believe that everyone on here makes interesting points. A few points I would like to make:

    1-Why was the ESRB not brought up? Bully will be rated M, which is 17+. So stores should not sell it to kids, if they do, fine them. Parents should not buy it for their kids. And if your kid somehow get $60 and buy the game...be a parent and PUNISH YOUR CHILD!!!! Adults need to be adults here.

    2-How can one train to commit mass murder by playing Doom or any other video game? Last time I checked, a gun is nothing like my 360 controller!!! I would say I was better trained to commit mass murder during my tour in Iraq in the early 90’s. Should I sue the Marines for this training???

    3-Is Jack on of those parents that blames Marylyn Manson for violence? If I remember correctly, people did the same thing in the 70’s with Black Sabbath.

    In short, parents…be parents!!! And let well adjusted adult gamers play any type of game that we choose. This witch hunt is crazy!!

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:25 AM
    FunBoy73
  • dragonqueen2all

    Adam you rock ^_^

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:22 AM
    dragonqueen2all
  • eticket109

    It's funny how Jack Thompson shows up when Rockstar releases Bully, but doesn't say anything in public about Dead Rising or any of the violent games not released by Rockstar.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:15 AM
    eticket109
  • L337_Player

    Jack Thompson pretty much set himself up for failure, as some of the things he said as SpookeeBoo stated, he has waged a war against the gaming industry and gamers, he pissed everyone off, and now he has gotten what was coming to him, he is focusing on the game Bully from Rockstar, he is saying it will cause kids to act more violent at schools right? Well I think he's just a retard, he is still basing everything hes doing off of things that happened more than 10 years ago, like Columbine for instance, Please tell me one huge act of violence that has recently happened due to a game, I can't think of one myself.
    Playing a game is choice not a forced thing, video games help aggression if anything, than cause it.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:14 AM
    L337_Player
  • tdunc

    Dubalo7 it has nothing to do witht the fact that violent games may or may not lead to more agressive behavior, it about this guy telling me what games I can play. I'm a 21 year old male and I think that I should beable to deside what I can and can't play. Also what kind of increased aggression did theses subject portray, were they given clubs and started hitting each other or did they aggressivly put together a puzzle. I played games since the first Nintendo and a lot of them were viloent ones where you shoot people or what ever and it hasn't effected me, I have never hit or kick anyone out of anger, I've never even been in a fight with anyone. I do agree that kids should not be playing games that are created for adults but it's the parents responsibility to make sure that happens, kids have to get the money from some where or the parent have to buy the game. For all gamers to be punished because some adults don't or won't take responsibility for their children is wrong.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 1:02 AM
    tdunc
  • L337_Player

    Dubalo7
    I guess your right in someways, but I can openly disagree with you, I am 14 and I play GTA, RE:4
    God of War, Half-Life 2 pretty much any violent game out there that is good, I have probably played, and I am not agressive or violent in anyway possible.
    So why don't they effect me at all?
    Video Games cannot do anything but be played, they can't make someone do something, it's like you or Jack Thompson or anyone else like him or you saying Sublimonal advertising can control someone, video games are just programs, or put it this way, Mozilla Firefox caused me to kill someone, is what it sounds like your saying to me.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:59 AM
    L337_Player
  • SuicideKing666

    This is just another witch hunt, in the 50's Dr.Frederic Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent tried to pin childhood aggressivenss behavior on comics, and now this Jack Thompson is trying to pin childhood aggressivness on video games. I have news for the world, sports incress aggressive behavior, yeah sports those things parents try to get their kids to do. So should parents stop their kids from being competitive?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:44 AM
    SuicideKing666
  • Matt2244

    Just saw the debate tonight and it was awesome. Jack Thompson is probably one of the parents who just wants to blame everyone else for what's wrong with his kids instead of taking a look at his ownself. Parents definitely take responsibilty for their own children. Ive played all the GTA games among just about any other violent games. But Im realistic enough to understand the difference between video games and reality. Jack Thompson what a freak!

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:29 AM
    Matt2244
  • SpookeeBoo

    AOTS has openly ragged on Jack Thompson in the past so it's not really a suprise that they don't care for the man. They never claimed that they would present an unbiased debate. Besides, this guy deserves to be grilled after such comments as "Islam promotes the killing of innocent people.", "Gamers are considered by normal people to be cretins.", "What the Japanese are doing to our kids is insensitive and racist." These among myriad other qoutes. Does this sound like a stable, reputable man to anyone?

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:06 AM
    SpookeeBoo
  • TitanofGames06

    If parents don't want there kids to play violent video games its simple don't buy the game and if you do and you see that the game is not to your standard take the game and call it a day but please don't put this thompson guy on tv again trying to tell me what games are good to play and what games are not because if your telling me that a person can play gta and then go to school and shoot it up because he played gta then you need to censor all forms of media including books and music. Anything at any givin time can cause someone to have an increase in aggresson so please lets not blame video games because if anything video games can serve as an outlet to release aggression.

    Posted: August 11, 2006 12:00 AM
    TitanofGames06
  • TitanofGames06

    Dubalo7 I agree but I feel that sessler and perrera did the right thing, because the gaming community is being attack here and needed to defend its self to the best of its ability. Ive been hearing nothing but negative talks about games and you want the host of a gaming network to in a way add to a situation that is completly blown up because some people want to name a source for all that is wrong with our generation and that is not the issue and i feel that the other side to this debate should not be the one heard because when it is all said and done parents buy the game consoles and games for the consoles.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 11:58 PM
    TitanofGames06
  • Dubalo7

    Just one more thing that really got me mad. Attack of the show posted on its website two clips that they made attacking Jack Thompson. Now what kind of unbiased source would degrade another person comically before they were going to have an honest debate with them. They set Jack Thompson up for failure. Admittedly he is not the best candidate to debate this issue. But still it is unfair to set the viewers directly against Mr. Thompson. It made the debate a foregone conclusion in the minds of the viewers.

    Poor journalism and shifty tactics.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 11:42 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Oh and here's some more facts.

    So I doubt that anyone on here denies the claim that smoking cigarettes causes cancer right? Well Bushman recently published a meta-analysis (which takes all the studies published on the issue and generates an average correlation called an effect size) on video games. The effect size is on the same order of magnitude as the effect size calculated for the link between smoking and cancer. So violent videogames are just as linked to aggression as cigarettes are linked to cancer.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 11:40 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    In social psychology we run studies with a multitude of subjects to come to a general consensus (and subject our findings to strict empirical rigor). We have no reason to misreport our data. We are scientists. If we said that video games didn't cause aggressive behavior there would be just as much of an uproar from the other side of the debate. Research seldom lies, inference from experience often does.

    I suggest that the hosts of this show call up craig Anderson or Brad Bushman and ask them to appear on the show and allow them to present their research without the biased views of someone who doesn't conduct research. Let them state their claims first. If you can ultimately deny their research, then more power to you. But I doubt that you will be able to.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 11:20 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Now who should be responsible? The video game companies? Well not entirely. They are just providing a service that people want. If there were no market for violent games, they just wouldn't make them. It is consumer demand that drives the production of violent games. It is my opinion that it is more in the hands of parents to curb aggressive game play. If they notice that their child can not understand that it is "just a game" that they should keep them from playing it. The media should also be more responsible (and yes I'm talking to you Perrera and Sessler). The media needs to start understanding the research correctly and conveying a more positive message to their viewers rather than dramatizing it for ratings. Why else do you think that AOTS put up such an affront to Mr. Thompson? They are a video game network. Their fans are video game players. If they were to come out against video games, they would lose viewership.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 11:18 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    As far as movies and music being a worse thing than video games. How can something that you passively interact with cause more aggression than something you actively interact with. The interactive nature of video games is what causes the greatest concern for social psychologists. When we play a game we take on the goals and intentions of the character that we are playing (we do the same thing when we read a book, or watch a movie, but we don't have as much active control of that character).

    Posted: August 10, 2006 11:17 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Now what does this mean? Does this mean that violent video games are the root of all aggressive behavior? no, there are many other things that can cause aggression (e.g. rejection, heat, other violent media, etc). But it does show that it is one cause of aggressive behavior? Yes, so that warrants it to be something that should be cautioned about. It is a risk factor for increased aggression.

    Video games are a special case however in that they can be more readily monitored than other causes of aggressive behavior. This encourages us to regulate these games.

    Now is every person who plays a violent game going to go out and kill someone? No, of course not. Everyone who smokes won't get cancer. But still it is a risk factor. The simple finding that more aggressive people are likely to play aggressive games is incredibly troubling. These people who are already high in aggression are just exacerbating their aggression.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 11:16 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    What were the results? Well those that played the nonviolent game showed no significant difference from those who did not play a game at all on the aggression variable. Those that played the violent game, however, showed increased aggressive behavior. As far as trait aggressiveness, those who were higher in trait aggressiveness were even more aggressive after playing the violent game, but those low in trait aggressiveness were still higher than similar participants that played the nonviolent game or played no game at all. This is conclusive evidence showing a link between violent video games and aggressive behavior.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 11:14 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    Yes there are findings showing that playing violent video games increase aggressive tendencies. And yes, more aggressive people are more likely to play violent video games. This would discount any correlational research done on the topic. But it does not discount the experimental research done on the topic. In these studies students were randomly selected and randomly assigned to condition. These were just normal college students. One third of them were assigned to play a violent game, one third to a nonviolent game and one third did not play a video game. Remember that these were randomly assigned students so aggressive tendencies remain moot in the findings (although trait aggressiveness was measured). In this type of study the only thing that is causing the outcome is the variable that is being manipulated (in this case the type of game being played).

    Posted: August 10, 2006 11:13 PM
    Dubalo7
  • Dubalo7

    A post in several parts. Please read all.

    I am a loyal AOTS fan but I have to say that I was appalled by the biased representation of this loop and for the blatant misinterpretation of the findings by Sessler and Perrera.

    I am a social psychologist (just like Dr. Anderson and Dr. Bushman the ones conducting the video game research under debate) and I have to say that the hosts of this show did a terrible job presenting an unbiased representation of the research on video game violence and aggression.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 11:12 PM
    Dubalo7
  • LunaticMonk

    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 11:03 PM
    LunaticMonk
  • tnt69

    Jack is just thinking and setting his mind on Video games as the source of violence but if you opened your eyes jack you would see that there is so much more worse things that can cause violent thoughts music,movies,other people,and lets not forget chemical imbalances. Also its unbeliveable that Jack can tell Mark that nothing else can make kids violent in end Jack is just trying to hard to ruin games and it isnt working so hes acting like a baby seriously also stores say you cant get a teen or mature game without parents concent its not the video game industries fault stores still sell those games to kids and its not there fault that parents still get those types of games for the kids.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 10:45 PM
    tnt69
  • JPLteen

    i think that its not the games fault,its the parents fault for not sitting with their kids and telling this is wrong or u cant do that,ect. but theses parents refuse to take responsibility on the fact that they f*** up.they think that if they place the blame on the game all their problems go away.im 14 and i play graphic games and im not a violent person.plus out of all the problems in the world like terrorism and world hunger and all that stuff,all the govornment does is worry about a little violence in games and wastes money on a problem that could be solved by parents paying a liuttle more attention to the games their kids buy and play.the game company does its job by making the game to entertain its target people,the esrb does its job and rates the game,but when it comes down to it the parents arent doing their job, i think all the shooting and stuff would end if parents would monitor their children more.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 10:34 PM
    JPLteen
  • jahmin2000

    yea seriously Jackoff Thompson is a fu**** retard. Adam made him look like a fool. And if you read that article on GameDaily that the guy was talking about it proves that video games dont cause violence.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 10:20 PM
    jahmin2000
  • Think_as_1ncans

    Someone representing gamers had to stand up for us, and i believe Adam Sessler was the right man, showing they don't just give away college diplomas. Jack Thompson tried to use ill-gotten facts that for one are decades old, and two just seem flat out irrelevant. If Jack was smart he would know that he is fighting in the gaming equivalent, key word gaming, of the Nuremburg trials. The outcome of those trials was this, you may be given orders and you may be threatened to follow them, but at the end of the day the brain is inside your head and you control your own actions. Bravo Mr.Sessler, you did a great job. Bravo.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 9:17 PM
    Think_as_1ncans
  • L337_Player

    I kind of agree with Nytes' comment on how we forgot him but,
    I actually remembered him, I forgot his name though, sorry dude, but he did make a great point on how it is the parents job to know what their kids are playing, and they very well have the power to control it.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 8:33 PM
    L337_Player
  • Nyte

    I feel sorry for the middle guy haha. Noone even remembers him even being there.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 8:28 PM
    Nyte
  • djace13045

    Hey Jack Thompson How does it fell to now be Adam Sessler's B!Tch You are full of S@!t AND You do not what you are talkking about you all I have to say is this Suck it Thompson

    Posted: August 10, 2006 8:27 PM
    djace13045
  • drueg

    hahah! finaly that putz tomson got what he deserved!! i agree that him and sessler should have an hour long debate, and at the end thay could have a boxing mach or somthing. that would kick ass!!!

    Posted: August 10, 2006 8:26 PM
    drueg
  • djace13045

    Hey Jack Thompson Adam Sessler

    Posted: August 10, 2006 8:23 PM
    djace13045
  • L337_Player

    Wow, that was a great debate they had going, make another one but give them some more time, I really want to see Jack Thompson get his ass humiliated by Adam, I would say I love Adam now, but....well
    wtfever I love Adam now =D

    Posted: August 10, 2006 8:07 PM
    L337_Player
  • poonster

    yes, way to go Adam it's about time that that moron Jack Thompson had someone to call him on his bull**** like Adam who knows about video games.Seeing war footage from Iraq or just the daily news could'nt possibly cause kidss to be violent so it has to be those damed evil video games, ya right.we all know that millions and millions play games and never even thought about what it would be like to re-create what we see in the games. nobody ever mentions that the 100's of millions of Japanese play games and their crime rate is super low,,,sorry for rambling but that idiot thompson gets me so piss** off he's just another jerk who has nothing better to do than try and force his morality on everyone else.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 7:57 PM
    poonster
  • Jengo

    adam rules, and every statment he made is true.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 7:45 PM
    Jengo
  • Riakawn

    Did you hear how many times Jack ass was trying to inturrupt Adam sessler?? he needs 2 be shot. lol im sorry but he really does. Adam knows what hes talkin about.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 7:42 PM
    Riakawn
  • GrandGeekKris

    Adam Sessler Is A Wise Man.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 7:40 PM
    GrandGeekKris
  • GrandGeekKris

    Another Reason Adam Sessler Is One Of My Heroes!

    Posted: August 10, 2006 7:34 PM
    GrandGeekKris
  • lazarus20

    I believe that this debate regarding about violence in video games is something of a pointless disgustion due to the fact that there are people out there that will only see one side of the view and not the other but in regarding about Adam and Jack (HEAVY DEBATE) in this loop I thought it was the most intense disgustion and I must say that I really enjoy it. On a side note Adam should consider going to represent in defending video games he is really good at it.

    Posted: August 10, 2006 7:23 PM
    lazarus20
  • RezXD

    G4 should have another Videogame Violence special with an hour long debate between Adam Sessler and Jack Thompson, the one in The Loop got cut off way too early ;-;

    Posted: August 10, 2006 7:16 PM
    RezXD
AdChoices