There certainly are exceptions, I imagine most of us who grew up playing violent games turned out fine. But with the increasing realism my "restrictions" become a little more strict. 

Spambler was half quoting bambuz and half posting his own stuff... 

As mentioned in a previous post, I recently wrote an argumentative research paper on the topic of violence in video games for an English class. It apparently was well-written since I received a grade of 100% on it, but I'm not sure it has a lot of relevance to the current issue (it only briefly mentions the increasingly convincing violence) and it's also written more for someone new to the issue.

On top of all that, it was also an exercise in convolution. What I mean is there was at least one spot where I carefully quoted someone who was clearly against media violence, but I made it sound like he was fine with the idea.

Anyway, I don't expect many of you to read this 7-page essay (not including the works cited information) since a lot of you seem to have trouble focusing on something that takes more than 5 seconds to read.

http://rpg.spawnpoint.org/misc/articles/violence.html 

I would have read it, but I lost focus reading Shamblers previous post #17. 

I'm not not reading it now because it's long, because it isn't really. I'm not reading it now because as you say it's not quite about this particular issue. But GG with the result anyway!! 

NT 

It mostly cites research facts and other people's opinions more than your own (RPG). But interesting anyway. Something about 10% of games were rated Mature in 2003... I bet that increased b y at least 30% or more now. 

Yes, I cited others more often then myself. As I said, it was a research paper.

And I don't know about the percentage of games rated Mature in 2005, but it was a bit higher for 2004 than 2003 (16%). The reason I used 2003 in the essay was because I wanted to directly compare it to movies, and I didn't have any movie statistics for 2004. 

If you find this thread interesting, you'll find the essay interesting. 

tho I have not read it mysself yet:

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3141144 

Haven't read that but the quote on Blues says it all.

Anyway, the old "gaming does/doesn't cause violence" issue is old, boring, and less interesting than looking at the violence-within-games issue from a more philosophical POV as Bambuz started. I mean there's not going to be much of a debate about the former amongst us enlightended souls =). 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4072704.stm 

if people don't explode into a red shower of well defined interal organs, it's not a game I care about. 

I read that article, and it seems that, much like my last post, any stable individual will see that Jack Thompson is just trolling. God, he sounds like a egotistical jackass when he's saying "You wise guys who think you're so clever about saying what kids ought to play and then putting [Mature] games in the hands of those kids, you will wish you listened to me." 

oh the irony

it's palpable

sad he isn't on #tf, you could show your almighty 'power' lol, and ban him 

At least use your real name to diss scamp (even if you are entirely correct).

<3 Shambles XXX 

...but not from a Jedi.

^_~ 

this thread and all of your hearts and veines. 

You're a retard and that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. 

Regulars of Blues News may have already seen it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=351962&in_page_id=1774 

is that the headline is grammatically incorrect.

That's good stuff right there. 

When the news media reports a "new breakthrough," such as the fact that exposure to violence leads to desensitization of that individual's perception of violence.... then, I am scared of those journalists who have so much sway on public opinion.

Of course, I am pointing out here that such facts have been known for a long time. 

First of all, the effect of violent media is a hotly contested issue. Second, the research (as it was reported) sounds like a friggin mess.

All the members of one group had a history of violence and had been diagnosed with disruptive behaviour disorder (DBD). The second, control group, had no past record of behavioural problems.

Among the control group, normal frontal cortex activity was seen in those spared heavy doses of violence in the media. But normal volunteers who were highly exposed suffered the same defects as their disruptive peers.

You can't test two different things in the control group. That's not science.

Also: Results showed less brain activity in the frontal lobes of the youths as they watched violent video games. Watching video games is worse than watching tv for requiring no thought. What does that prove? 

It proves the article is full of shit. 

since a particular q4 video (qcon 2005) showing single player gameplay is out (someone paste the url)... I think the whole q4 video previews thingy was one that sparked this discussion. Some people might want to avoid spoilers.

The animation and models were pretty well done in some areas, but some things were quite cartoony, like the player being strapped into the strogg assembly line, being mutilated and all. That could be a powerful experience but it was not done as "hyperrealistic" as I would have thought, like lots of blood and convulsions and effects giving the impression of agony. First person torture / mutilation simulation.

I wonder if it was an actual decision to nerf it for a broader audience or something. Maybe it's slightly different in the finalized game, I don't know. The footage was not of best quality.

I discussed all this violence thing a little with some friends and now that I read my older comments, they seem a bit one-dimensional - there's, besides realism, also the nonrealistic dimension in use for shocking the players, but nevertheless with better newer technology (especially models & animation) the victims can seem more humane or the happenings more powerful and evoke much more feelings in players.

Maybe that's why nowadays many enemies wear masks, or are disfigured zombies.