http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/19/tech/gaming-gadgets/games-violence-norway-react/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
A man in Norway claimed that through Call of Duty he was able to train for the shooting that he carried out. Many disagree with the plausibility of this claim. As adolescents are the large majority of the users and owners of video games such as Call of Duty this is a topic that can really hit home. There are several points made in the article as to why his claim is not very likely to be true.
What do you think about video game violence as it pertains to adolescents? Is it a real influence? Reading through the comments what agreements and disagreements do you see?
I have chosen Prompt #1: Looks Matter
ReplyDeleteThe news article starts off with a screen shot of the video game “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2,” which is claimed to have been used as a shooting practice by infamous Norwegian murderer, Anders Behring Breivik. The picture is from the point of view of a soldier who is holding a firearm next to his fellow soldier. They are aiming their guns at what appears to be a burning plane in a suburban neighborhood. This picture may have been included by the author in order to show readers how a scene from the game that allowed a mass killer to prepare for his actions appears. The image chosen is from a first-person view and from the shooting game rather than from a third-person angle or “World of Warcraft” for this reason. The picture is very detailed and as close to a real-life image as video games come. The image suggests to viewers how this game may have been used as gun training. While the article explicitly states that many people do not believe that violent video games, such as the one pictured, can influence real-world behavior, the image displays why some people may think that it can. However, looking closely at the image, the picture actually shows how the belief that the realism in the game allowed him to practice shooting is flawed. The video game allows the player to know distances that wouldn’t be known in real life as well as the exact number of bullets and grenades remaining. From the image of the game, there is no way to get an idea of the heat from the flames or the kick of a firing gun. Later in the article are two videos that show scenes from his trial and people’s reactions. The videos make no reference to the video games that Breivik had played prior to his shooting. Instead, the videos show his emotions during the trial, which include a smug smile and the tears that he held back as his manifesto was shown. This video may have been included by the author to put a face to the man behind all of madness. Because the videos do not add to the video game story, it is possible that they were included to appeal to the emotions of the reader and possibly raise feelings of anger or frustration from his narcissistic demeanor. The main goal of the visual elements in this news article is to show how video games could have been used to train this callous man before his premeditated shooting and bombing.
Personally, I think video games offer violence as a form of entertainment to make a game exciting. Games with violence cause an adrenaline rush that games such as Scrabble don’t provide. I think it is very irrational to believe that violence in video games leads to violence in the real world. If anything, video games offer a healthy outlet for anger. Many people can use games such as “Call of Duty” to unleash aggression on fictitious characters, rather than to express them in an unhealthy manner in the real world. I also think it is ludicrous to believe that video games train people in war-like scenarios. While video games may simulate the real world to an extent, I do not believe it is enough to actually train an individual. I agree with the article in that one visit to a gun range will offer more training on firearms than playing hours of a shooter video game. I am curious as to why the article mentions he played “World of Warcraft” as training because in no way does the game model real world scenarios, and his actions, which involved bombing and shooting, are not present in the video game. I do not see what influence they believe this game had on his actions. From my own experience, I have played video games in which the goal is to fly a plane; however, I would not trust myself to pilot in real-life. All things considered, I do not think that video games influence behavior in the real world.
Brian did a really good job describing the article. Not only did he describe the explicit ideas, such as what the pictures showed but he also described what the implicit ideas that the author was trying to make. I thought it was interesting how at first he said that it would seem to be a good way to train because everything is very life-like but actually how it is very removed way to simulate warfare and is not good for training. He also did a good job of analyzing the picture of the shooter.
DeleteBrian did a nice job analyzing the article. He gave a very clear description about the ideas that were presented and why the author presented them in this way. He also analyzed the picture very well, added things about his own personal experiences,and stated his opinion on the article.
DeleteI also think that Brian did a very good job on his comment. He described the site with a lot of details and used examples from the article. He analyzes the picture at the begining very well and uses good details explaining how somebody could not train for real life killing by playing the video game. He also had his own ideas opinions towards the end and answers the questions that were asked.
DeleteI am responding with prompt number 7: the works. In the famous debate of whether or not violent video games create violent people(or mass murderers in this case), the author takes the stance against this claim. He seems to disagree that playing video games causes people to act violently as is argued in the trial of the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik. He states several reasons why video games do not lead to violence and backs them up with specific support and evidence. However, his article in particular does not seem to affect people very much. Many people seem to already have the same beliefs as the author, as can be seen in the comments. Most, if not all of them, already held the belief that video games did not create violent people and that they were not the cause for this massacre in Norway. The word "ridiculous" is used by a number of the commenters to describe the argument presented by the defense in Breivik's trial. They find it "ridiculous" that he is claiming violent video games trained him to be a good shooter, they find it "ridiculous" that people would believe in his argument, they find the entire argument against violent video games itself "ridiculous". For a few of them this article is completely useless. One even says it is a "waste". Because for many this debate about video games is old and "beaten to death". They have heard it so many times, and the same conclusions are drawn every time: there is no hard, physical evidence to prove that violence stems from violent video games.
ReplyDeleteI myself do not believe that video games are a great influence for violence in adolescents. They don't even influence my 11 year old brother who has played them for a few years now. As mentioned by some commenters in the article, millions and millions play these games, and only a few turn out to be extremely violent criminals. It's just not a logical argument to say that the video games made the people violent. To me it does not seem any different than a kid going outside and playing with a toy gun, which have been around for many, many years, except that video games require less imagination.
I am responding with prompt 2, Agree to Disagree.
ReplyDeleteThe big argument going on throughout the article is whether or not video games have influence negatively on their users because of the violence they see and create in the video game. However, once you get down to the comments, it is basically a uniform agreement that this is an absurd idea to believe. Nearly all of the commenters say that things like this have been going on for years, whether it be blaming video games, movies, or comic books. Most of the comments try to put it in a different perspective that sounds a bit ridiculous but I think they do it this way so people will realize how ridiculous of a claim the whole article has in the first place. The commenters say things like "I play angry birds, but I don't want to go out with some pigeons and throw them at buildings" and while this seems idiotic, it is actually a good point I believe. The only interaction throughout the comments is everyone agreeing with each other basically, one person commented and said that the comments were "hilarious" and that everyone was doing "good work". It seems that the readers of the article value true news that has meaning, because most of them seem to believe this is just an idea in an article that will get views and people's responses, and that the media just needs to drop the entire idea.
I do not personally think that video games can have that big of an influence on adolescents, but then again I also have never played video games that much. I personally think that if you're crazy enough to kill someone, that craziness was not instilled in you because of a video game. One of the good points in the article came from a comment from google + about if someone trained at a shooting range everyday on how to shoot and hit targets, would that make us want to criticize the shooting range? I just think violence is something that everyone in society sees, whether or not they play video games, and that if you really want to kill someone, video games have no influence on your decision.
Casey did a good job not only responding to the prompt, but also responding to the questions proposed at the end of the post. It is clear throughout the comment that there was a uniform agreement with the commentators on the article along with concrete examples like that of the angry birds comment. Casey also made a good point while answering the questions posed at the end of the post by saying "...if you're crazy enough to kill someone, that craziness was not instilled in you because of a video game." This is basically what the consensus was from the commentators on the blog and I thought it was good that the two were correlated together.
DeleteI am responding to prompt 6: stake your claim
ReplyDeleteThe author of this article makes a new claim when he states the points on why the idea that using violent video games as a reason to kill people and using it as a training device is ludicrous. Before he started stating his opinions he seemed to remain neutral on the subject, showing both arguments about the video games. But when he states his points in bold, showing he clearly is trying to persuade the audience that Call of duty is not the shooters sole reason for killing people. He obviously had other motivations and the author points that out. He also makes another point that the game would not be a good training device. He also says that the killer may have used videos games as a cover up. I don't think any of the points that the author made were particularly controversial, but I do think that they are persuasive because if one doesn't know very much about the subject they would be subjected to believe that video games do not have much of an effect on how people act.
I think that saying you learned how to shoot a gun by playing Call of Duty would be like saying you learned to play the guitar by playing guitar hero. While the games have the idea of shooting a gun/playing a guitar there are obvious differences and the simulations are no replications for real life actions.
I like how Mary Kate pointed out that the author did stay neutral in the beginning of the article. With all of the points made against Call of Duty and video games in general influencing anything, it was easy to forget that there is an argument for the other side. I also like her metaphor, because it is accurate. It sounds impossible that someone can learn real life shooting from a game with a controller or mouse. It sounds equally ridiculous that someone could learn to play guitar well from a video game with a couple of colored buttons.
DeleteI am responding to Prompt 2: Agree to Disagree
ReplyDeleteThe major idea I noticed throughout the comments is that this whole story is ridiculous. The majority of the commenters all agree that there is no way a video game could influence a gamer to go out and innocent lives. As Casey describes, all of the comments are in agreement with each other, some giving examples of how other video games do not encourage violence amongst gamers. A lot of the comments go along with the article saying "here we go again" and suggest that CNN and the rest of the media stop wasting their time posting stories about these crazy and impractical ideas.
I do not feel that video games influence adolescents to perform violent acts. Video games are games; they are in no way similar to real life. As Mary Kate states, just because you learn how to play a game well does not mean you will be good at that actual activity in real life. Another example other than Call of Duty or Guitar Hero is 2K12. 2K12 is a popular teen basketball video game. Just because players are good playing basketball with a controller does not mean they are good when they are actually playing on the court.
I’m responding to prompt 7: the works. The vast number of comments pertaining to this article clearly shows how much this read struck home with many people. It seems that nearly everyone, myself included, agree with the experts that throw their two cents in throughout the article: violence in video games has no effect on the violence performed by people in real life. Video game violence is not reflected in the acts of adolescents and if it were it would not be fair to place the blame on that of the video game manufacturers. A video game is just that, a game; the actions taken in video games are not mimicked in real life by that of a sane person. Throughout the comments there seems to be a resounding agreement that there is nil way of violence in real life adolescents being traced back to the video games they play in their own homes. One comment clearly expresses the ridiculousness of video game violence in real life accusations when he jokingly states, “I play Farmville… went into a rage… and started digging up my neighbor’s yard…” Another comment goes as far as to blame the parents and family of those that are not watching their child closely enough or those who haven’t directly told their child the difference between life portrayed in video games and life in the real world. Regardless of the seriousness attributed to each comment found in correlation with this article it seems clear that the article does affect a person’s ideas enough to reinforce what they already believed: video game violence is in no way reflected in the acts of adolescents in the real world.
ReplyDeleteSam's comment is well written and expresses the effects that the article and comments has on the reader. The example comments that Sam focused on largely supported on the same point of view as the author of the article. The numerous like-minded comments demonstrate that the original author was successful in convincing readers that video games do not affect real-world violence. Sam's comment was very clear in explaining "the works" that went into the article's message.
DeleteI am responding to Prompt 2: Agree to Disagree
ReplyDeleteThe article and those who commented before me seem to be in agreement that video games do not influence violence in adolescents. I want to play devil's advocate and argue the other side.
Here is an article describing 8 different people who have died while playing video games.
http://www.ranker.com/list/8-people-who-died-playing-video-games/autumn-spragg.
The article tries to be rather humorous and not serious, but the facts are what is relevant. Some people can become so engrossed in their game, that they forget basic needs such as food and sleep. So video games can have a strong influence on someones life.
Another point I want to make is how competitive someone can get over video games. There are those people that throw their controllers and headsets or slam their keyboards if they die in a game. A person could naturally be really competitive and hate losing, but losing consistently in a video game could make that worse. So video games can cause acts of violence or aggression. I don't believe video games can be blamed for something as extreme as a shooting, but I don't think it is inconceivable for video games to influence some aggression in someone. If the correct combination of competitiveness and engrossment in a game are met, I can see someone acting out in the real world because of it.
I am responding to prompt 7: The Works. As many people have already stated, the majority of the comments are from people that think the idea of people killing because of video games ridiculous. After reading all of the comments, it is hard to find somebody that didn't seem to already have their own opinion on the issue. One person commented "The only ones opening up this beaten to death "debate" is the media because it's a cheap way to get clicks." This seems to be the truth, because everyone that commented on the article already has heard about people claiming that video games can influence killers, and didn't seem to gain any knowledge from reading the post. Like many commenters said, this debate has been beaten to death by the media, and is nothing new to people. A few people even commented about CNN, saying that it was ridiculous that they would even have posts regarding this "debate", and that they are just reopening the issue. It seems to me that the majority of the population has already heard about killers using video games to train, they think it is a ridiculous claim, and just do not want to hear about it anymore.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the questions, I believe that video games have little to no influence on real life violence of adolescents or any human being in that sense. I do not believe that it has a real influence, and like one commenter said, I feel it just has to do with the individual and his or her upbringing. I agree with the commenters, who said that playing angry birds won't make someone grab some pigeons and throw them at sky scrapers. It's just a crazy claim overall and should not even be a "debate" anymore.