Just yesterday I was writing in my modder's diary in a game development website about how dumb I found the whole GTA:SA "Hot Coffee" mod ordeal and the uproar it has caused in the media. Just when I thought it was over, with almost a full week of not hearing anything else on the subject I found myself clicking on article titled "Video Game 'Mods' Under Scrutiny". I could not believe my eyes, I thought it might come to this but that was way back there in my brain along with the scenario where pigs can fly and computers use us to do their menial and annoying tasks instead of the other way around.
Well needless to say I thought this was one of those issues most gamers would care about and I thought I'd share it here.
Personally I don't think this will go anywhere because it's simply absurd. Modding has a huge amount of influence in the game development, it's been around ever since the early days of gaming and it has only become stronger and more mainstream over time. A modder myself (Here and Here) I would be outraged if something like this *ever* became a reality.
With the advent of gaming becoming increasingly popular during the past few years, game developers have started to fear originality and have instead settled for mixing and matching formulas and ideas that "sell" instead of focusing on creating new and original games with fresh ideas and the chance to revolutionize the industry. Taking that into consideration, I find it ghastly to even think about modding being 'outlawed' as if it were some sort of crime akin to piracy. Modders are among the few people who have the freedom to let their imagination fly and create brand new worlds, with no worries of "how many copies their game will sell" and no publisher to hold them back.
I'm really ticked off, this nonsense needs to stop now.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: but that was way back there in my brain along with the scenario where pigs can fly and computers use us to do their menial and annoying tasks instead of the other way around.
I don't know about the pigs, but computers do already make us do their menial, repetitive tasks. We call that MMORPGs.
Edit: I do agree, mods rock. Ah, the glory days of Quake (note, no numbers after the title) when you could download a different way to play Quake every weekend.
posted
These aren't true modifications. These mostly relate to hardware that you add to the console in order to change a couple bytes in memory.
A real 'mod' is one that you take the game source code and add things to it to completely change the whole game for a different experience.
All of hot coffee was in before it shipped. It isn't really a 'mod' it is an locked mini-game.
Completely different subjects, and to make everyone think mods are bad is insanity. Remember Counter-Strike? That started out as a simple home-grown modification that some of the original.
Now, if it were a real modification: You wouldn't have it on consoles without a 'modified bios' (usally refered to as a modchip) that allows you to run code not signed by the publishers. Secondly the group that would have made the modification to the game would have come under fire, (not Rockstar) But since this was shipped in the game it CANNOT be called a modification. All you have to do is turn it on.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I thought it was kind of funny* that the game itself was all about drug deals and murder and carjacking . . . and the part people got upset about was a scene that depicted sex. Just gotta love society's priorities, eh?
*Not "laugh out loud" funny. More like "slap them in the face" funny.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, this goes back to one of my Troll posts as Chreese Sroup: It depicts sex and we can't have sex. By this same logic we can't have humans in videogames because every human has to be conceived.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There IS a difference in the human response to sexual imagery versus the human response to violent imagery. We can't help that our brains are wired in such a way that even seemingly-innocent sexual content can arouse and excite us in a way that violent imagery simply can't.
If humans reacted to images of violence the way sharks react to the scent of blood, then you'd find violent imagery getting axed all OVER the place. It would be WAY too dangerous to risk exposing people to it any but the most careful, restrained presentation.
Unfortunately, humans DO react to images of sex the way sharks react to the scent of blood. We become physically aroused, our thoughts and desires are suddenly diverted to the subject, and if exposed too regularly, we can become obsessive about it and lose some measure of our self-control.
We're primates. That how we work. Sexual images fill us with lust, while violent images fill us with adrenaline. If we were sharks, then violent images would fill us with BLOODlust, and this would be a very different society
But adrenaline isn't nearly as dangerous. If anything, games filled with certain kinds of action and violence help us to tune our reflexes, and make us smarter, safer humans.
SOME games (like Manhunt and, I don't know, Battle Raper) push the sick side of violence far enough that it stops serving a healthy purpose and becomes shark porn.
But while it's fun to point out how ironic it is that violence and explosions in GTA are okay, while interactive sex scenes are not ... well, blame evolution. Not society.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And holy crap, we don't really need nine thousand people to make that same exact point EVERY time the subject comes up I have this conversation a lot, and I'm getting tired of it Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know "Hot Coffee" isn't a real modification, the only reason I called it such is because that's what the media is saying and that's why other actual and legitimate mods are now being scrutinized.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy, I disagree. I have seen that "mod" and wasn't aroused at all. Also, as a society we expect people to control all sorts of those "inbred" impulses, from sexual impluses to violent impulses, as well as a range of others....
There are plenty of peoplein other cultures that don't have the same reaction to this sort of sexual imagery...not the arousal part, the overeaction part....so since we are ALL primates, that can't be the answer.
I think is has more to do with the culture we live in than in any hardwiring we may or may not have. There is nothing evil or twisted inherant in sexual arousal, but this society treats it like there is.
I usnderstand why, and I agree that this game went a bit far and deserves scrutiny because of it...it is just too bad that the whole industry may suffer because of it.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a society in which the sight of violent imagery arouses the typical citizen with a lust for murder?
I'm not aware of one. Yet in virtually every society I'm aware of, sexual pornography CAN be used to excite a lust for sex. Simple nudity or suggestive behavior might incite different degrees of response in societies with different expectations and experiences, but erotic imagery, in general, can still be effective anywhere, as far as I'm aware.
I agree that Hot Coffee, as a specific example, is kind of ridiculous. It was clearly a failed experiment, probably created for the amusement of the development team, and never intended for public consumption. They didn't even bother to create nude skins for the characters.
But my main point stands. Whether you personally think that sexual imagery should or should not be controlled, it should at least be apparent that there is a difference in the instinctive human reaction to sexual imagery versus violent imagery. And that it is not unreasonable for a society to set separate decency standards for these two types of imagery, given their different effects.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's the first coherent and rational explanation for the violence-is-more-acceptable-than-sex phenomenon I've ever seen. And I think there were some valid points in it.
Which is not to say I agree. I truly think it's the nature of our society that makes us react the way we do. We hide away sex and make it so taboo (at least officially; unofficially, that game has been over since at least the '60s) that it causes more excitement than it normally would. (And it would normally cause enough on its own, thank you very much.)
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly, the effects of sexual imagery can be intensified or dulled through environmental conditioning. That doesn't mean it is completely fabricated by society And I think we actually agree on that fact ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether you personally think that sexual imagery should or should not be controlled, it should at least be apparent that there is a difference in the instinctive human reaction to sexual imagery versus violent imagery. And that it is not unreasonable for a society to set separate decency standards for these two types of imagery, given their different effects.
Absolutely. No one has argued otherwise, that I am aware of.
But are we really living in a society in which a game about carjacking and murdering innocent people in drug deals is an acceptable game, while the insertion of a lame sex scene makes the game an outrage?
We're not just talking about violence as an abstract here, or cartoon violence, or wargames where you play a soldier. We're talking about a game in which the player acts out the perpetrating of horrible crimes, and everyone thinks it's all fine and dandy. Then they insert a cheezy sex scene, and that causes a massive outcry. Maybe the sex scene is wrong, and maybe it isn't. But is it really more wrong than the activities you commit during the rest of the game?
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yet in virtually every society I'm aware of, sexual pornography CAN be used to excite a lust for sex. Simple nudity or suggestive behavior might incite different degrees of response in societies with different expectations and experiences, but erotic imagery, in general, can still be effective anywhere, as far as I'm aware.
I( think that is absurd, to be honest. There are a lot of countries in Europe that have VASTLY different mores than we do about nudity and sexual responses, and they don't have the same problems we have with rape and sexual assault.
When I see a pretty woman I may get physically aroused, but that doesn't equate to taking action on it, nor would such a display mean i was even interested.
When I get pissed off there is just as strong a physical reaction, one that is even MORE hardwired then a sexual urge...it is based in the "fight or flight" reflex, one of the strongest present in humans. Same thing happens when we get excited or focused, in a non-sexual way, about anything that is holding our attention. It is called an adrenaline rush...
And it in no way excuses or justifies any violent act the we commit.
Once again I think it is more involved with our society than with any inborn impulses...we haven't outlawed adrenaline rushes, even though they cause people to act erratically...
And video game violence isn't real violence, any more than video game sexual imagery is real sex. To say that once won't cause a person to act illegally (violently) but that the other will cause them to act sexualy is absurd.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
People on the other side (the pro-censorship side) of this debate make the same fallacious connection, too. They assert that because sexual imagery causes instinctive lust reactions in humans, effectively inciting them to have sex ... therefore, violent imagery must also incite people to commit acts of violence.
On the contrary, while violent imagery (cars crashing, guns firing, buildings exploding, people kicking each other in the head) DOES have an effect, it does not cause a lustful reaction in humans. Instead, it fills us with adrenaline, making us want to ACT, to MOVE, to do EXCITING things.
We're not predators. We don't naturally react to the sight of blood by suddenly wanting to kill and devour someone.
Instead, when we see violent or vertiginous images, our body prepares us to RUN, to CLIMB, to JUMP, and to FIGHT. But it isn't murder and death we want. It's excitement, survival, and victory. The same reaction can be triggered by skydiving, rollercoasters, and bicycling, and can be satisfied by reaching the top of a climbing wall, winning a race, or earning a high score.
That's why I think we need to recognize the distinction between common video game violence (GTA, Battlefield, Halo) and shark porn (Manhunt, Battle Raper). The former is just a thrill, and it makes us better monkeys The latter is where it starts to get weird ... attempting to excite desires that we're really not supposed to have.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: attempting to excite desires that we're really not supposed to have.
Well, that is another topic to be sure...I am not convinced that we are "supposed" to have any of these...
The physical response to observed violence is well recorded. My point is that the physical response doesn't equate action in either case, so therefore can't be used as logical proof.
I am not disagreeing with you completely, Puppy, but I still say that it ahs more to do with society than biology or neurology.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And video game violence isn't real violence, any more than video game sexual imagery is real sex. To say that once won't cause a person to act illegally (violently) but that the other will cause them to act sexualy is absurd.
I don't know anyone who has been addicted to violent imagery. I have known people who have been pathetically and desperately addicted to pornography. I know that's just anecdotal evidence, but it seems to be borne out in the accounts I read by other people.
I'm not saying that ANY of this needs to be censored to prevent people from immediately running out to commit some harmful act. Of course I completely agree that people are responsible for their actions. I mean, come ON.
But as fun as it is to say how everyone is SOOO much better in Europe (really, it's kind of cute), I'm having trouble buying the idea that we should treat all imagery as identical, and assign it moral value that corresponds directly to the real world, without taking into account the fact that MAYBE some visual stimuli have qualitatively different psychological effects than others.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe the sex scene is wrong, and maybe it isn't. But is it really more wrong than the activities you commit during the rest of the game?
From a moral, story-centered standpoint, GTA (with or without Hot Coffee) is appalling and pretty much indefensible.
As far as visual imagery goes, however, the violence is actually pretty mild and cartoony, compared with the ragdolls and splatters you can see in some other games. If you're looking purely at visual content, the sex and violence are at the very least on par with one another.
But yeah, as far as moral messages go, GTA is like The Godfather without the tragic irony. Pretty dark crap. Not messages I'd want to instill in a kid.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Everyone in this thread is making some really good points about human nature and lustful and natural reactions to violent and sexual imagery and interactivity. I'm bookmarking it, on account of a time may come where in an argument, I'd love to pursue some of these points.
My views go: It is strange to me about the overreacting of everyone on the 'Hot Coffee' mod, when there aren't skins on the characters involved, and in the normal game, the plot and freedom encourages/allows you to kill anyone, rob places, make drug deals, and even pick up prostitutes that cause your car to shake. I guess it really has to do with what we view as acceptable as a society, and what would scar the minds of this generations youth (including me).
The point about mods is a good one though also. Because even though 'Hot Coffee' is in the disk, you need to download unaffiliated 3rd party software to activate it, neh? Which I belive shouldn't affect the rating of a game, whether or not it's built in. And you do not need a mod chip for all mods. In every game, there are things that make it into the final retail edition of the game, but are never seen by anyone playing inless you have 3rd party software, or mad hacking skills. And the 3rd party stuff is not always as expensive, difficult to use, and hard to get as a mod chip. At this point I've forgotton what point I'm trying to make with mods besides that it's the game developers intention that you don't access what is not made available to you, except for buying hardware/software not approved by them, im which case, all games should carry a warning that any third party software/hardware bought, installed or activated on the game may change the game experience, and is not rated or approved by ESRB or the developers or any companies affiliated with them. Similar to the warning when you take games and play them online.
posted
I think the ESRB caved. They've given this group far too much power and are inviting serious trouble for the whole industry down the road.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not safe to conclude that, because violent imagery doesn't trigger a lust to be violent, it won't eventually trigger violent behavior. There are other methods of inciting violence than the creation of an immediate lust for it, and those are just as much our concern, aren't they? For instance, if violent imagery makes violence seem more normal to children, and thus leads them to accept more violent solutions - that would be just as bad as if they had a lust for violence that resulted in the same effect.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, most of these games that keep being persecuted for their mature content are *not* for children. Somebody who's 17+ and able to get Mature games should know better by then than to confuse games with reality. If they cannot make that distinction then there's quite a bit more wrong with them than just the games they play.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: MAYBE some visual stimuli have qualitatively different psychological effects than others.
I assume we're only interested in behaviors these 'psychological effects' engender? Because, really, who cares what people are thinking.
If it's so universal, then we would see a large increase in certain crimes corresponding to the massive ingestion of GTA's images. The franchise at this point has been seen by, what? Millions? At least hundreds of thousands.
Barring a few abnormalitis, since we haven't seen this increase in crime, it would appear to me that legislation is not necessary.
posted
What this whole thing boils down to: Game makers decided to police themselves, Parents don't pay attention to what they are doing. Parents get mad.
Sad that because some parents don't care enough about their children to find out what they are buying for them. Yet, they think they can make some money because of the mistake they made.
Why on Earth should we attack those that are trying to do good? (ESRB and game companies / publishers that openly submit to ESRB ratings)
AO is fine in my opinion, where are the responsible parents that are needed for this to work? Answer: NOT BUYING THIS GAME FOR CHILDREN.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raventh, you have a good point, but actually, the AO rating will be effective in keeping the game out of the hands of a lot more people than the M rating would. Not because parents are magically more responsible, just because none of the big retail chains will sell the game anymore. That's why it's a big deal for Rockstar.
And as much as I hate what Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton are trying to do to videogames, I actually agree with the outcome they spurred on, but not with their reasoning behind it. Completely aside from the issue of "is the sex really worse than the violence" is the fact of Rockstar Games' dishonesty. First of all, they left the content in the game and didn't let the ESRB know about it. Even if you had to use a code or something to access it, it was in the source code that shipped with every disc, which makes it different from other mods, as has been mentioned. And then when the content was found, they lied and said they didn't put it in, knowing full well that they did. That's what's so inexcusable.
They basically undermined the very foundation of the entire ESRB ratings system. Of course the system is voluntary, and the ESRB relies on the honesty of the game developers to report the content that they have in their games, since they don't have the resources to go scouring through every single line of code from every video game that's released. So now that Rockstar failed to do that, who's going to blame people for thinking that it might happen again sometime?
As for the original topic of this post, though, any move to ban mods in general is just stupid. The only reason this is even being considered by anybody is because video games are such a new and oft-misunderstood form of media. If a similar situation were to arise in any other media, such a move would be immediately recognized as a blatant attack on free speech rights. Banning mods would be like trying to stop people from writing fanfiction.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't consider this "dishonesty" to be an establish fact. Publishers do not make it a practice to pore through the code of the games they distribute. When a DVD can hold, what, over four gigs of data ..? it's pretty much an impossible task. They test what they can see by simply playing the game a million times, and ship with the assurance that there are no surprises.
My immediate assumption from the data and from my experience is that Rockstar Games probably instructed their subsidiary Rockstar North to remove the sex scenes, or Rockstar North decided to do so on their own without ever even showing them to ROckstar Games. The programmer assigned to remove them simply disconnected them from the game, but did not take the time to extract them from the data that would be printed on the discs, because he did not think it made a difference either way. His superiors were informed that the scenes were gone, testing the game proved that out, and so they shipped it believing that the game was going out with an accurate rating.
There was some brief defensive butt-covering as the problem was first being discovered, but by and large, I haven't noticed any outright deception.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you obviously have a lot more experience in the industry than I do, and I hadn't really thought of that as a possibility, so you very well could be right about that.
That doesn't really help the situation much, though. Whether it was intentional or not, Rockstar still failed to accurately portray what was in their game, and the politicians and people that make the rules about this sort of thing aren't going to care if they meant to do it or not.
I'm more worried about the ramifications for the industry at large than about who gets the blame at Rockstar.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rockstar gave the ESRB the game, to test and play, so they could rate it.
Inserting a patch of code to stitch up something that wasn't supposed to be in the game is the matter.
Someone found the dirty laundry, and told everyone about it, and how to access it. You can only access it on any console if you have a third party tool to do so. Yes, Rockstar left in some unsavory content, but that content isn't accessable by the uninformed.
Rockstar did portray what was in the game. It wasn't the intent to have such material available.
I don't have the game, but from reports I have read, the material isn't any worse than that of rated R material. (Again, I haven't seen it first hand, or will, because I don't care.)
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's about on the level of a really raunchy sex comedy ... pantomimed sex acts in skimpy clothes. Not something you'd be comfortable seeing with a kid, but not exactly a turn-on, either.
That's from briefly seeing a clip of it online (I was pretty turned off by it, so I didn't watch the whole thing), and from accounts by friends who have seen more ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raventh, I know that it wasn't immediately accessible, but the fact remains that it was in the game code of every game that shipped. Nobody had to add any of their own code or anything, it was already in there, that's why it's different from most mods. And besides, leaving something like that in the game and releasing it to the specific community of PC gamers, when it's well-known that they'll scour every bit of the game looking for cracks that they can exploit, is rather stupid at best and downright deceitful at worst. We don't have the information available to decide which of those it is, but they obviously didn't do a good enough job of covering their tracks.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, see that's the thing. Console games can't really have "mods" at all, because the source code is inaccessible. They're calling this one a mod because it was first found on the PC version, but then people looked at the console versions and found that, yep, the code is there too, so for the console game you just have to use an Action Replay code to see it (which normally lets you do things like gain infinite lives of be invincible or other cheats like that.)
So other mods for console GTAs, no. Other cheat codes, undoubtedly, but obviously nothing this controversial.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. You probably haven't heard of the nude patch for the famous beach volleyball game. Where all they did was remove the clothing, because they were modelled anatomically correct. Should that be in a video game? (Tecmo sued after the information was released.)
This game was only released on the X-Box.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's completely silly to model characters to be anatomically correct if they won't appear nude in your game. Unless you're doing it for reference or something ... I dunno, I have trouble believing that story. Got a link?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, at the level of graphics on that sort of video game, given how anatomically correct they'd already need to be for bikinis in the beach volleyball game, anatomically correct without bikinis amounts to three areas of color change.
And actually, it would make sense for me for them to do that -- make a few general body models that was anatomically correct, and have a "swimsuit engine" and a "hairstyle engine" which put different swimsuits and hairstyles on, generating sufficient variation that nobody notices there are only three to six body types. The only questionable part would be in the sections of the body that had to be covered by a swimsuit, but those are quite small, and as noted, only require a few extra pixels to be "anatomically correct".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Puppy, I bet you'd find few Europeans who'd say all visual stuff was qualitatively identical in psychological effect. However, you'll be hard pressed to make a case that merely seeing nudity commonly is somehow harmful or detrimental given Europeans not having any particularly gigantic problems we don't have . . . yet seeing far more abundant nudity from a young age.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And because fugu doesn't have enough posts in a row -- regarding making the models anatomically correct, I would have, without salacious intent. If I'm making a high quality video game model, and the choice is between making an accurate one or an inaccurate one missing a few pixels, my model's going to be accurate. Its a preference I have for seeing completion over incompletion.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think fugu is using a rather loose definition of "anatomically correct" (i.e. Barbie is anatomically correct, whereas Ken is not). Tom's hardware actually did a story about the history of nudity mods for games... there's no mention of DoA:BV, but there is a section on a company who took several of the models of female characters who wore skin tight outfits in DoA2 and changed the color of the costumes to the same skin tone as their face and hands. Here's the link to the story. A warning to those who are sensitive about such things (or at work), there are pictures: http://www.tomshardware.com/game/20050806/index.htmlPosts: 70 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I just filled out a questionnaire for PEGI, the European equivalent of the ESRB. They do draw a fine distinction between "sexual nudity" and "non-sexual nudity" (defined as including bathing and sunbathing), but we are encouraged to define "sexual" quite broadly, and in the end, I'm not certain how they weigh either form of content in their determination of a rating.
Either way, they do acknowledge that there are ways for nudity to be sexual, and they take it very seriously, even if they do not consider all nudity to be sexual.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, interesting development ... some really, really stupid people have decided that it will help the cause of gamers to start sending Jack Thompson death threats. Which he promptly forwards to the media to back up his own position. Thanks a lot, buttwads.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I am using a rather lose definition of "anatomically correct" -- I was speaking slightly more than barbie, though; enough pixels to show nipples and the (in)appropriate hair, which as you can see on most of those mods is just that, a few pixels.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, I was thinking of linking that here yesterday. It's amusing that the video-game-and-television-reared youth of today are the least violent youth in recent history.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't need to be in good shape if you can get guns, though. Added: Has GTA taught you nothing? Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It surprises me that in the article Storm quoted, they used Asheron's Call 2 as the "violent game" to test people with. It's an MMORPG. Even though there IS fighting, it's about the most boring KIND of fighting in the industry (perhaps with the exception of the Final Fantasy games). I mean, if violence in games DID have an effect on youth, MMORPG violence would have the SMALLEST effect because its pacing would completely kill any thrill or aggression that could come from the experience.
Though I personally have wanted to harm my computer a few times after playing an MMORPG ...
Anyway. I'm definitely not opposed to the researchers' conslusion. I just wish they'd chosen a game that mroe clearly established their point.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
