­
Videogames, aggression, Anders Breivik – let's not join the dots

Videogames, aggression, Anders Breivik – let’s not join the dots

“Violent videogames cause people to become violent in real life”. It’s a familiar refrain for anyone who has read a newspaper in the last 15 years. Today, the media reporting surrounding the trial of accused mass-murderer Anders Breivik has dusted off this old chestnut to explain a shooting spree and…

Nr9hc5zv-1334895430
Playing violent games didn’t make Anders Breivik a mass-murderer. alessio.sartore

“Violent videogames cause people to become violent in real life”. It’s a familiar refrain for anyone who has read a newspaper in the last 15 years.

Today, the media reporting surrounding the trial of accused mass-murderer Anders Breivik has dusted off this old chestnut to explain a shooting spree and bomb attack that claimed the lives of 77 people in Oslo last year.

Breivik has testified that he used World of Warcraft and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare to train for his attacks. He also testified to be a member of the anti-Muslim militant group Knights Templar and refused to recognise the authority of the federal court system.

The fact that videogames play no demonstrable part in Breivik’s (or any other) act of violence hasn’t stopped the media from creating and re-creating this narrative, even to the point that university media officers are picking up the chant.

The research shows what?

A University of Gothenburg press release about a new study is entitled Researchers questioning link between violent computer games and aggressiveness.

The release reports that the authors are “questioning the whole gaming and violence debate”. The study itself, published in the International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning is entitled How gamers manage aggression: Situating skills in collaborative computer games.

Taken together, these two titles might lead one to interpret the study in a similar vein to researchers Craig Anderson or Christopher Ferguson. That is, it would make sense to argue either that violent videogames do (Anderson) or do not (Ferguson) have a meaningful effect on players' aggression levels in real life.

Instead, the research is actually a detailed study of how players of massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) – such as World of Warcraft – cooperate to manage the attention of powerful, dangerous enemy characters (known as bosses). In MMO parlance, that attention is known as “aggro”.

The aggression being managed, then, is not that of the players, but of the computer-controlled enemies. How, then, is this research linked to the debate about media effects?

Hint: it’s not.

The ‘media effects’ narrative

As Dan Golding pointed out in an earlier article on The Conversation, the media only seem equipped to discuss videogames in three ways:

The press release announcing this new study, as well as coverage of Breivik’s trial by the Sydney Morning Herald, among others, falls right into the first category.

The notion of media effects and transfer (from medium to real-life) is perhaps as old as communications media themselves. Even Plato was wary of the power of the poet “because he awakens and nourishes and strengthens the feelings and impairs the reason".

Today’s “violence and videogames” narrative is well-worn. So much so that even a public relations officer at a university takes a study on videogames with the word “aggression” in its title to be examining a “link” between mediated depictions of violence and real-world aggression.

But the link to the media effects research such as Anderson and Ferguson’s is not entirely facetious: the Swedish team of researchers are in fact questioning the basis of the videogame violence debate; the “transfer” mentioned earlier.

Transfer, as the study points out, is a contentious construct of educational theory. It is, to quote from the article: “the appearance of a person carrying the product of learning from one task, problem, situation, or institution to another”. In this case, the “transfer” of aggression from videogames to real-life.

The authors of this study rightly point out that the nature of transfer is contentious, ill-defined, and rarely agreed upon. Thus, there are disagreements about how to empirically measure the effects of media on an audience.

But instead of pursuing this, the paper moves on to conduct a close study of raid encounters (where numerous players attempt to take out a boss together), documenting the skills and knowledge used by players who cooperate successfully.

These skills include:

  • spatial awareness and the importance of positioning one’s avatar in the immediate geography around the boss before and during the fight
  • case-specific knowledge about additional enemies entering the fray and appropriate responses
  • reacting to other unexpected events during the fight, such as the death of a healer (a team member who’s role it is to heal fellow players).

The depth and precision of the details presented in this study are valuable and will certainly provide excellent reference material for future scholars who are researching and writing about MMO gameplay. But this study simply isn’t focused on violent videogames leading to aggression in the real world.

Overcoming the narrative

The aim of the study I’ve been discussing was, in fact, to take a step back from the debate entirely and avoid assuming the straightforward transfer of media, with regard to videogames.

The authors “approached collaborative gaming where aggression is represented as a practice to be studied on its own premises”.

To that end, the study is working around what media researcher James Paul Gee calls “the problem of content". That is, looking past the representations of violence shown on screen and measuring what the human players are actually learning to do while playing the game.

In this case, players deploy very specific knowledge about the geography of terrain, the behaviour of bosses and the various skills their individual avatar possesses.

This study does not suggest that causing an avatar to swing a broadsword will incite the human player to do the same, or similar, the next time he or she steps out of the house for some milk.

Even though there’s no consensus on media effects nor the relationship between videogame and real-world violence, the international press still get completely lost in a frenzy as they pump out hysteria-filled headlines.

Gaming news outlet, Rock, Paper, Shotgun has called out a range of global outlets on their reporting of the Breivik case. Thankfully, publications such as these are interested in clarity and truth and refuse to allow the popular mythology of videogame violence to cloud basic reporting.

Sign in to Favourite Help evidence based journalism become the norm and donate

Join the conversation

59 Comments sorted by

  1. Luke Weston

    Physicist / electronic engineer

    Saying we should ban video games because Anders Breivik liked video games is kind of like saying we should ban Christianity because that seemed to influence Breivik significantly as well.

    report
    1. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Luke Weston

      Funny thing is, his Christian world view is a huge component to his manifesto yet barely gets a real mention. The very tenuous video game link, has gotten much more play.

      I think it's this strange notion of religious tolerance that actually leads to a huge amount of conflict and violence. Perhaps a healthy dose of equal and pacifistic religious INtolerance would go a long way to solving the problem. I decry the religious extremism that Brievik rails against, but just as equally the religious extremism he so clearly stands for.

      report
  2. Rodney Lorrimar

    Programmer

    “Violent television programmes cause people to become violent in real life.”
    I watched an interesting documentary about this topic last night called "The Mean World Syndrome." http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=143

    It is about the research of George Gerbner which debunked the idea that watching violent images on television caused viewers to become aggressive. He found instead that viewers of violent films become convinced that the world is more dangerous than it actually is. This has its own problems.

    Gerbner claimed that it's not helpful to think of media violence in a straightforward cause and effect way.

    Realistic violent video games were a little before his time but maybe the same thing holds -- i.e. there's no direct link between playing violent games and being violent but you could become paranoid and more willing to accept extreme solutions to perceived threats.

    report
  3. Joseph Bernard

    Director

    @Adam

    do you know that the Taliban also banned all video games, videos, TV, radio and music.. Did that stop violence?

    report
  4. Tim Scanlon

    Author and Scientist

    I've seen all the Diehard films and once stayed up late to watch all the Rambo films. Therefore I must be a violent menace to society.

    All of these accusations at violent media and pornography have not been supported when looked at with an unbiased eye. I agree with Adam, the narrative needs to change. If we are going to actually find the good and bad affects of our modern lives we have to stop with the uninformed and biased viewpoints.

    report
    1. Alan W

      Scientist

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      You realise that this is the same argument that was historically put by the tobacco industry to discredit claims that smoking caused lung cancer?

      Nothing prescribed by any doctor is universally efficacious, so why do you hold any effects of media consumption on behaviour to a higher standard of evidence.

      The whole 'it doesn't effect EVERYONE in the same way' argument is silly to the point of being a non argument. Which is odd coming from someone who decries 'uninformed and biased' viewpoints. May I suggest you take a look in the mirror, sir?

      report
    2. Tim Scanlon

      Author and Scientist

      In reply to Alan W

      You haven't understood what I have said I'm afraid.

      My point is that there are many factors that go towards causing a problem. For that problem to be treated correctly the entire list of factors and their weightings must be understood. What personality types are at risk, what exposure levels, what sort of exposure levels, does there need to be other compounding exposures, etc.

      The studies that have been done on video games have shown mostly positive results for users and that users can discern the difference between games and real life. So the research is not showing any support for the populist opinion. Thus the populist opinion is getting in the way of proper understanding of what effect games may be having on development.

      report
  5. Greg Canning

    General Practitioner

    The psychopathology that leads an individual to act as Breivik did, will never explained by a simple association with video games or any other single factor, rather a complex mix of factors which may include some aspects of video gaming. Computer simulation is being increasingly used for training of the modern military, where the intent is to hone their skills and combat power to particular(often remote) tasks. Breivik may have approached his use of games as a type of training, but the games per sae would be unlikely in my view to affect his decision making process leading up to his killing spree. Personally I believe his fatherless, feminist dominated up bringing and associated religious and racial bigotry( socially acquired) are likely to feature much more prominently is his distorted thinking.

    report
  6. Gideon Polya

    Sessional Lecturer in Biochemistry for Agricultural Science at La Trobe University

    One should also consider (a) the detachment and (b) the accuracy of killing for which Breivik says that he trained by using a video game.

    Consider the following from US expert Colonel David Grossman reported by ABC Background Briefing ("Killology", 2 May 1999: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/killology/3557332 ) and discussing how normal human beings, including trained US police officers, have a big internal inhibition against killing other humans and that this…

    Read more
    1. Adam Ruch

      PhD Candidate, Videogame Studies at Macquarie University

      In reply to Gideon Polya

      "(b) the accuracy of killing for which Breivik says that he trained by using a video game."

      Does it not occur to you that Breivik might be less than truthful? Why are we so quick to dismiss his claims about multiculturalism as evil, or his non-recognition of the court's authority as the ravings of a madman, but the minute he claims to have trained through videogames, that's reported as totally reasonable? Why would you believe ANYTHING this guy says?

      He has also said that he used games as a cover, an excuse to hide what he was really doing while planning his attack, and also as a break once he was finished. He called his year-long Warcraft break a 'sabbatical.'

      I find it far more important that he trained with real weapons, firing countless rounds out of real firearms at practice ranges. I play many videogames, and I have shot a number of firearms in the past. They are not the same thing.

      report
    2. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Gideon Polya

      But are we looking at the use of video-games to overcome a social detachment in these people or is it for training? Brievik himself said the year long binge on World of Warcraft was not training, but as a present to himself...a break. It wasn't training but a rest from it. Brievik himself spent a lot of time in shooting ranges which has a lot more to do with his precision than video games.

      I'd hazard to say that the big factor in Michael Carneal case would be his distancing and lack of empathy…

      Read more
    3. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Adam Ruch

      I'm willing to believe he believes everything he says. The manifesto and his ravings are mad, but they do have a framework and reasoning. The reasoning is flawed by his own actions and hatred, but nevertheless it is a reasoning he uses.

      I think he's quite truthful when he describes his idea of how he sees multiculturalism and that that was his driving factor. To ignore his own reasons and drive so that a cry against video games can be taken up, as has been done in the media, is disgusting. It's essentially mopping up the blood while not dressing the wound.

      I think to many people, its just much easier to blame a video game because the solution would be to 'ban' it. It's much harder to hold the mirror up to our society and go "Hmm, maybe it's something a bit deeper that we need to address".

      report
    4. Anthony Nolan

      Ruminant

      In reply to Gideon Polya

      Goodoh Gideon. I've been looking for the source you cite above since reading this article. Video games don't create killers but they sure can assist with the training. There is as well the distancing and dehumanising effect so that the shooter doesn't see a person in the cross hairs as anything other than a target suitable for a reflex kill.

      I don't support banning or even censorship of violent video games. However, after noting that the most difficulties I've ever had in the workplace were caused by senior staff who were 'gamers' (read arrogant and uncultured boors convinced that their games were the equal of a knowldge of Shakespeare and more) I have adopted a merciless opposityion to the advancement of such people. I prefer to eff 'em up and see 'em gone.

      Prejudiced? You bet. Watch out.

      report
    5. Anthony Nolan

      Ruminant

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      But Harrison the distancing and lack of empathy *is* part of the training. It's a mind/body thing that allows you to squeeeze not jerk the trigger while breathing out not in...the soft release that gives you five (count 'em) head shots from a total of eight hits from eight shots.

      report
    6. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Anthony Nolan

      Schizophrenia and depression can account for the lack of empathy and from what I understand about his case, he shot a group of kids nearly point blank range. You don't need a huge amount of training to aim a gun and pull a trigger in that environment.

      I just think its an extremely tenuous link to draw, when there are much simpler and better explanations for cause rather than happenstance.

      report
    7. Joseph Bernard

      Director

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      @Adam,

      not sure if you have read any of the court transcripts? Breivik wants to be treated as sane and he wants the world to know His motives.. Although everything He says may not be true, I suspect that He believes what He says as true.
      If you read what he actually says in court, Breivik describes the reasons He felt He had to make a public statement. One specific point He repeats is how the media and what He calls the "Marxist left" has a blind spot on Islam. Breivik specifically…

      Read more
    8. Anthony Nolan

      Ruminant

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      Except, Harrison, the person cited by Gideon is Lt Col Dave Grossman, US Army (Ret) who is a Westpoint Professor of Military Science (!). He is not suggesting a 'tenuous link' at all; he is mounting a sustained and informed critique of the psychological and social impact of violent video games.

      BTW Adam Ruch - it is one thing to note that the meeja is reigniting the old commonsense argument about violent video games but another to neglect to mention the work of Lt Col Dave Grossman with whose work I would assume you are familiar given your chosen field of study. Grossman is a significant authority on this area. His blog: http://www.killology.com/bio.htm

      report
    9. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Anthony Nolan

      I'm familiar with Dave Grosman... and my criticism above is very much linked to Grosman's typical line of reasoning. Notice he doesn't usually talk about violence in videogames or films as a problem in his general idea of 'Killology' for adults but for children. I don't disagree... but these games aren't legally allowed in the hands of children anyway and the largest portion of the gaming audience (non-casual) are adults, not children.

      I just think his reasoning is flawed as he's really just proving something thats a no-brainer yet expecting us to be up in arms. This is why we have a ratings system and don't just allow anyone to pick up anything.

      report
    10. Anthony Nolan

      Ruminant

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      You are misrepresenting Grossman who says that:

      "Brutalization and desensitization are what happen at boot camp...In the end, you are desensitized to violence and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world.

      Something very similar to this desensitization toward violence is happening to our children through violence in the media, but instead of 18-year-olds, it begins at the age of 18 months when a child is first able to discern what is happening on television…

      Read more
    11. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Anthony Nolan

      No, we shouldn't discard the notion, but the problem is that many have jumped on the bandwagon before examining anything else.

      There is much more of a link between alcoholic consumption, home abuse and extremist religiosity than there is for video games. I don't disagree they all can play a part, but again... we have a legal framework around video game violence being held from young children.

      His argument is against growing up surrounded by violence. I agree. But he picks a fight with violence in video games for children that just isn't there. It is if you break the law and provide violent games to children, but thats again an issue that resides in educating parents, not the fault of the games.

      report
  7. Peter Ormonde
    Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Farmer

    Video Game Studies? Really?

    All a bit chicken and egg I suspect regarding causality. Far more interesting is why people (mostly boys) in gadget addled societies spend so much time virtually blowing people and stuff to bits.

    Obviously an outlet for frustration and aggression - not necessarily a cause of same.

    Where does this frustration and aggression come from?

    report
  8. Noel McFarlane

    Cycling advocate

    I doubt we need to be worried that every person that plays a violent video game will become more violent themselves. But I can imagine the games have a role in depersonalizing violence, especially when a gun (rather than for example fists) are used.
    What rings in my ears is the evidence from military people on the issue of how accurate in their aim killers, some of whom have barely even used a gun before, become due to some games. For example US LT. Col. David Grossman has identified that violent "point-and-shoot" video games not only had a mentally damaging effect on young people, but also sufficed as shooter training for rapid-fire, sequenced attacks on moving targets—exactly as occurred in Columbine; Paducah, Kentucky; Portland, Oregon; Erfurt, Germany; and the 1997 killings in Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia. In all these cases, the video training played an important part.

    report
    1. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Noel McFarlane

      If they didn't train with video-games, they'd train with paintball, or movies, or through tactical discussions on web-boards... the list goes on. The biggest problem is the culture and society that allows this heavy violence to get in the hands of children.

      You don't solve that problem through banning, you solve that through educating the parents. You solve it through making sure violent video games have a proper R+ rating so that the framework is there to refuse its sale to young people. Saying video games are desensitising are like saying a DVD player is, or a TV is... it's what you watch and when you watch it that matters.

      So a Lieutenant pointed out that young people who shouldn't under our laws have had access to these games, had access to them. That just tells me the failure lies in the people ignoring the laws, not the laws themselves nor the games.

      report
    2. Anthony Nolan

      Ruminant

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      No one's advocating banning of video games and of course parental control of rated material is a significant issue. What I'm advocating is that gamers need to grow up. I stopped playing cowby's 'n' indians in single digit years. Read a book, go to a play, learn to cook or otherwise do something that grounds you in an adult humanist reality. Do anything, really, to help you put away childish things like WoW - try Brecht instead.

      report
    3. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Anthony Nolan

      Gaming isn't a mutually exclusive enterprise. I read books, I research, I cook a mean array of foods, I do many things besides it. If I read Peter Rabbit all the time, I wouldn't be well rounded, but according to you, at least I'd be reading.

      Much the same, there are a great range of experiences encompassed by the term 'gaming'. Brain teasers and puzzlers sit under the same label as MMOs, and each offers something tangibly beneficial. If that's ALL you do, sure, but thats the same with every single thing in life. Does it make any difference if you experience Brecht through a play, a movie? Why would it be any different if you experience his ideas through a game (apart from your perception of course)?

      Your notion of the gamer is a quaint and widespread one. That doesn't make it right.

      report
    4. Anthony Nolan

      Ruminant

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      I'll admit that my only experience with gamers has been such as to convince that at least those of my unwilling acquaintance were alienated sufferers of moral Asperger's syndrome. Alarfmingly, they were senior public sector employees administering to the needs of the very vulnerable.

      I've never yet seen or heard a games enthusiast say anything other than that "we're all normal, really, and the games are really great and sophisticated reflections of cosmopolitan culture" or some such. This is odd because everyone I know has some experience of a gamer who is so intersubjectively incompetent as to conduct themselves towards others as if the others were mere objects to be manipulated. Like in a game. Not once have I ever read a gamer say "yeah, well, some of 'em really do need to get some fresh air and a life".

      report
    5. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Anthony Nolan

      Well, I am essentially saying that yes there are gamers who need a life, but thats not because of the games. It's because of the focus on one experience or one 'thing', and that sort of addiction is a problem that can afflict anyone.

      I can't say all movies are great, just as I can't say all who watch them have the same intention. Same for games, or books. I can point out though that it isn't the movie, the game nor the book that causes the problem.

      I think a good case in point has been the…

      Read more
    6. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      Yes.... thoughts and ideas.... and blow them away... complete with sound effects and blood spatter.

      Now I'm not saying this "makes" someone into a psychopath ... god knows what does what and why He lets it happen ... but it does make our psychopaths much better shots. Is this a good thing?

      I'm just curious about why grown people - 90% men - enjoy and are entertained by unleashing wholesale virtual destruction and slaughter. Is it addictive like porn or smack? Is it arrested development?

      Why do you guys get off on this stuff?

      report
    7. Anthony Nolan

      Ruminant

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      Well Harrison I've spent some time over the years playing various versions of Halo with my son and this mainly so that I could offer an informed counter narrative about violence not being a fit subject for entertainment.

      I'm currently watching 4C on Breivik. How anyone can defend violent games as entertainment in the light of this event and the reality of violence is beyond me.

      In fact I think that your defence of violent video games and the proposition put forward by the author of the lead article is proof positive of how they operate as ideological desensitizers and moral deadeners.

      report
    8. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Anthony Nolan

      I'm sorry, but how exactly is either the author or myself showing a lack in morals or desensitisation? What, because I'm not running and screaming about how all the little children in the world who have access to material they shouldn't is leading to apocalypse? No, I'm actually very concerned morally about his violence... enough that I'd rather get to the root cause of it than wheel out the old dead horse.

      If you read through any of my comments, I do not condone violent games for kids. I don…

      Read more
    9. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Well, because some stories that are told are inherently violent. A game based on World War Two isn't going to be about picking daisies, and a game based on a culture clash between humans and aliens will mostly be about conflict.

      I think you'll find that many games are much more nuanced than just 'violence, violence, violence'. Many recent games have actually done a very good job at confronting the player with very moral choices and thought provoking stories.

      It's being quite flippant by saying that 90% of men enjoy mindless destruction and slaughter. There's always a mindless group in it for the cheap thrills, but there's also always people who can mentally go beyond the veneer of a film, or a book, or a game and get to its soul.

      report
    10. Anthony Nolan

      Ruminant

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      Oh. You really don't get it. That's what I mean about desensitisation.You could disavow violence out of respect for those who died from violence even to the point of refusing your indulgence in violence based entertainment. That'd be good.

      Instead you say that "But as adults we need access to this material because most of what contains violence also contains very real truths."

      Such as? And how often do you need to have your appetite for violence restimulated and satiated in order to be reminded of the truth of violence?

      report
    11. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      No Harrison...

      I'm not saying that 90% of men enjoy squeezing little plastic triggers and blowing people to bits in their dark bedrooms - far from it. If you read what I wrote you'll see that I'm saying 90% of gamers are male.

      I'm just really curious about why people would find this fun. It is quite beyond me.

      I do not understand where they draw pleasure from the "excitement" and "fun" from taking out monsters and dragons, Japs, muslims, women, other car drivers or some other purported enemy, outsider or threat.

      My question Harrison is simple: why do men enjoy playing at being Breivik?

      Why do gamers enjoy killing stuff?

      report
    12. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Anthony Nolan

      So lets stop reading the Bible, or the Quaran out of respect for those who have died in religious violence. Oh, I guess Hitlers 'Mein Kampf' is out of the question out of respect for victims of World War Two... actually, any account of a war, or criminality out of respect to both victims of violence.

      No, I'm quite happy to state that I'm not so worried that I'll censor myself from anything that has the whiff of controversy, violence or potential to offend. I find my morals and my ideas not by…

      Read more
    13. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Oh, I didn't get that 90% of gamers are male... because they kind of aren't.

      http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/women-comprise-40-of-us-gamers-26-of-whom-are-over-age-50-5327/.

      The ratio is closer to 60/40 male to female.

      Once again, and I am tiring of typing this, violent games have more to their substance than the violence. Perhaps people 'enjoy killing stuff' because they realise, shock horror... they aren't ACTUALLY killing stuff. I wouldn't accuse a person of watching the news, which contains very real violence, as solely watching it because they enjoy seeing pain and suffering.

      If you can't tell the different motives between a Brievik and a gamer then I don't think anything more constructive can be said on the matter.

      report
    14. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      My goodness Harrison, this is not what is being discussed or asked. No one here is saying that reading about violence is abhorrent or cruel or inhuman. We are a violent product from a violent history.

      What we are saying is that sitting in one's bedroom massacring enemies in some concocted fictional setting - dragons, knights, aliens, monsters or people - for fun is really quite strange behaviour. No matter how nuanced. No matter how clever and ingenious, it still involves shooting, chopping…

      Read more
    15. Anthony Nolan

      Ruminant

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      "I don't play a violent video game for its violence...". Apparently there are still many men who don't read Playboy for the photos either.

      You could watch Passolini's 'Salo' once and get the point because of his artistic authority and political rage but instead you engage with these games of violent repetition. Repetition is the essence of neurosis. I'm not being offensive but there's something going on here.

      report
    16. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      No you're missing the target again Harrison ... read carefully:

      "I'm just curious about why grown people - 90% men - enjoy and are entertained by unleashing wholesale virtual destruction and slaughter."

      Not "gamers" Harrison ... I'm talking violent first person shooters involving militarised slaughter and the like ... not just "gamers".

      The few women I know who play video games a lot play complex structured stuff about building things and solving problems in the main. The sims and even…

      Read more
    17. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Anthony Nolan

      Wait, why is it you presume I wouldn't have watched 'Salo', which was a confronting experience? Is it because you assume that someone who has played a video game just obviously can't have explored other art or mediums?

      Look, it's blatantly obvious that you can't get past your pre-conception that there is nothing worthy to be gained from any video game. That all violent games are exactly the same, have the same reason for existence and the same titillating goal. It's also pretty obvious you view 'gamers' as some imaginary, collective all huddled around being anti-social and only ever playing games.

      It's a dismissive attitude which I'm sure has repeated itself throughout history. The vulgarity of seeing a Shakespearean play was viewed in just as much disdain. I just think you're just a little blinkered because you haven't really wanted to engage with it.

      report
    18. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      My point, linking in books and movies is because you can also be transported into those fictional worlds. The minds eye can place you in the action described and your pulse can go up.

      Exactly what game are you trying to describe? If you'd care to give a list of the games you've played and not just read about, that are so disgustingly 'pointless' then I'll quite happily discuss. Making up a sweeping statement with a generic argument, lumping in everything to one description of an unnamed game is…

      Read more
    19. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Link me to the article that states 90% of men enjoy and are entertained solely by unleashing virtual destruction and I'll bite.

      report
    20. Anthony Nolan

      Ruminant

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      No, I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't seen 'Salo'. I meant that his abhorrence of political violence and exploitation was clear with one viewing. Quite how FPS games promote non-violence or abhorrence to violence remains opaque to me. Are you suggesting now that FPS designers and players are misunderstood Gandhians?

      report
    21. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      But I realise I'm not actually doing those things. I engage with it on a 'watching' level, not on a 'this is real' level. I can't say I know a single person who can't make that pretty basic distinction.

      And for the umpteenth time... I don't enjoy the violence for the violence. The violence is part of the greater theme, plot and narrative; which is the thing I enjoy. Please don't keep trying to portray my position as anything other than what I've stated.

      report
    22. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Anthony Nolan

      Ahh, then in that case you must understand that a game is an extended piece. Sometime the arc might continue over multiple instances. Some might explore different ideas and subjects... have people stopped making comment about political violence or exploitation because 'Salo' explored them? No, some think they could do better, or in a different manner, or explore the same general themes in a vastly different setting.

      I'm not saying everyone is a peace-loving dude (which Gandhi wasn't, but complete side issue there), but I'm saying theres a little bit more to it than that they are all sado-masochistic automatons. I don't have to fly to the other side of the spectrum just because I disagree with you.

      report
    23. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      No Harrison you are doing it again you are allowing yourself to become disoriented and confused in the heat of battle ... that is not what I said and not what I meant.

      90% of men do not enjoy violence - even pretend violence - only a very small and unhealthy percentage of them. And it would appear that despite your protestations both you and Andres Breivik do. And I am wondering what it is you like about it and why.

      report
    24. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Did you say 'I'm just curious why a small proportion of society (90% of whom I think are men) are entertained...'? That's a lot clearer than saying 'I'm just curious why grown people' which insinuates a group encompassing all grown people, and '90% men' which is just hyperbole.

      Peter, I'm not disoriented or confused... and I'm happy to say I'm not fighting a battle. I'm quite able, as much as you might dislike, to continue to lay out my position in a concise manner without having to feel I need to fight a war.

      I think it's pretty weak that the last three or four comments have seen you link myself and Breivik together, without taking anything I have said into account. It's almost as if you expect that by saying we're in common his invalid views transfer through osmosis into me and make everything I say invalid. You keep asking me to explain, and every time I do, you ask me to explain.

      report
    25. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      No Harrison,

      I am asking you why you enjoy shooting, slicing and blowing up little virtual enemies on your computer?

      You won't tell me other than to say there's more to it than that. I'm sure there is. There was more to it for Breivik too. But it's all about destroying enemies and fighting for good and the defence of the world or whatever. Breivik spent 18 months alone playing FPS in his bedroom at his mother's house before he went out and played for keeps in Oslo.

      I just find it very strange that a grown man would enjoy this sort of business.
      I'm not saying that it causes psychopathy... but it makes psychopaths much better shots. It makes their victims very small and well "virtual".

      Why do you fill your recreational hours with victims ... even virtual ones?

      report
    26. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      I'm saying it quite clearly. Let's take an example. I'm not saying I love 'The Picture of Dorian Grey' because I love the degradation of the main character and 'the other stuff besides'. I'm saying the debauchery is a part of the plot and theme, and that THAT is what I enjoy.

      The violence is incidental but a component to some of these stories and themes.

      Where exactly is your evidence that video games make people better shots, above and beyond Breiviks training at a gun range. That I would…

      Read more
    27. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      It's not about watching or reading ... it's about shooting people and blowing up stuff.

      I'm sure that's not why an educated person would be doing it ... not for a minute... it would be the subtle nuances and the depth of imagination that intrigues. Would you still play if there was no mass murder in it?

      report
    28. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Well I'm truly sorry that you have an inability to discern when you feel you are watching something and when you feel you are doing something. Most of us can make this decision pretty easily, I'm afraid.

      So, would I still play a game that explores the atrocities of the Vietnam War that didn't have violence, an Edgar Alan Poe like horror that didn't have horror, or a game exploring extreme religious conflict in a science fiction setting without conflict? Nope, but I happily play video games that…

      Read more
    29. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      Reading violence is not the same as acting it out Harrison.

      You enjoy violence. You defend it. It is human nature. It is what made us what we are. How it has always been. Always will be. It is necessary.

      You enjoy playing at shooting and slaughtering people and blowing stuff up.

      Yes Breivik was "educated" too Harrison. And his battles against orcs and aliens made him a much better shot and taught him the basic elements of strategic planning. It also reinforced his diseased weltanshauung that he was surrounded by enemies and under attack.

      I just wonder - still - why otherwise grown-ups enjoy this stuff. Obviously feeding some seething primeval urge. Rage.

      report
    30. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Can we please stop with telling me what I enjoy and don't enjoy? I'm beginning to feel like you'd much prefer to fighting against a bloodthirsty, un-educated imbecile spouting out about how he loves killing things. I'm not that, but that doesn't really suit your view so you just ignore it.

      Again, the lovely yet tiresome correlation of myself and Breivik while completely discarding his warped religiosity and much greater physical planning. If you're going to say what Breivik is thinking or his…

      Read more
    31. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      No again Harrison. You are not telling me what you actually enjoy ... what it feels like when you pull that trigger, slice that orc, crush that skull.

      Rather you hide these feelings behind the imagination of the context, the fairy tale plot, the ancient urge to violence.

      But the violence and the killing is an integral part - the keystone - that holds the game together and keeps people - mostly men - coming back.

      Interesting psychology.

      As I've said above and often I'm not saying such enthusiasms "create" violence in society - doesn't create a Breivik. I'm just curious about why otherwise rational and educated minds would be entertained by it.

      Perhaps it is the lack of real enemies that drives us to create them.

      report
    32. Harrison Pitts

      Archaeology Student

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Ah right, you just tell me why I'm enjoying them. Stop trying to say that I'm hiding my feelings away behind imaginary context.

      Really, can we stop talking about 'the game' as if it's a single entity? It's a childish notion. If you have a gripe about the violence of a specific game or genre, let us discuss with actual real facts. This imaginary, mindlessly violent game in which you swipe swords and 'orcs', shoot people and train your accuracy is just that... imaginary. Repeating it over and over does not make the game exist.

      Have you played Amnesia:The Dark Descent? Mass Effect? Assassins Creed? Civilization? Once you gain a first-hand opinion I'll take your comments as a little more grounded in reality than they currently seem to be.

      report
    33. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Harrison Pitts

      Yes you're right ... aside from attempting to enjoy a game called Halo and I think it was Command and Conquer and another than involved killing lots of Japanese soldiers - Call of Duty - my exposure to these specific games is thankfully slight. My 16 year old son did nothing else for a year. Then he stopped.

      But I'm sure they are enthralling Harrison ... but as you must admit these games would be a lot less enthralling without the violence. It's the "action" - the adrenaline that provides the thrall.

      And I still don't know why.

      report
  9. Mark Solonsch

    logged in via Facebook

    I have to agree that it isn't the video games that made him a mass murderer. For Breivik, these were simply an important part of his training to carry out his task.

    The real issue is not to give any air to racism or religious hatred. If video games encourage that, then they do have a role to play in solving it. http://bit.ly/K3sv4o

    report
    1. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Mark Solonsch

      Spot on Mark.

      As I stated up top it's a chicken and egg business this. Correlation does not equal causality.

      But I am curious about why some of us would find a thrill in playing at blowing stuff up and killing little virtual people. The link posted by Gideon Polya above is quite disturbing and well worth a read.

      I'd be interested if anyone has got any psychological analysis of this behaviour ... not on "video games cause mass murder" proseletysing ... but say some fMRI gear on what is actually being stimulated and what is being suppressed in such entertainment and why some young men are drawn to it.

      report
  10. James Jenkin

    EFL Teacher Trainer

    The media effects theory is alive and well in commentary on the broadcast and print media. It's often asserted that readers or viewers can be incited to commit violent acts.

    ABC's Q&A had an interesting debate about this last year (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3277551.htm). In relation to the Brevik massacre, one panel member argued that commentators who 'preach hatred in the community have ... responsibility for violent acts that occur afterwards'. Another stated that Alan Jones 'incited the Cronulla riots'.

    report