Jump to content

Talk:Video game controversies/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Not Banned

Call Of Duty 4 and Assassin's Creed are NOT banned in Oman! i(62.231.248.122 (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)).

Tomb Raider

I'm new to wikipedia and I don't know if I should add the Tomb Raider series for crime and violence because i like playing Tomb Raider and I think that if it should be there then it would already be there. I want to add it there because they said that Tomb Raider III was too violent and she fought security guards, police officers, and tribesman. Random Ranaun 6:11, 31, December 2007.

The Getaway

The claim that it was the first game to use "fuck" uncencored isn't true. I distinctly remmeber it in The Orion Conspiracy back in 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordgod666 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Korean Paragraph

Can some one clean up this paragraph as it's confusingly written. It references 'similar rules regarding violence'. This makes sense if one is reading on from Poland but surely not everyone is reading the list in order, some may be only referencing the Korean paragraph. Can we rewrite it so it stands alone when read? Lifeinthewired 15:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of the spanking examples under controversy?

This section seems utterly ridiculous surely a sexism example section would have been a far better choice, particularly as many of the games mentioned in this section do involve a certain level of sexism against women while others are utterly harmless but only mentioned because one sentence in the game included spank/spanking. Flabbeh 12:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Postal 2

Shouldnt postal 2 be added to this page?

Controversial is not equal to Violence or Nudity

A game can exploit a lot of violence scheme but without being a controversial game. The same with "adults topics".

For example Larry wasn't controversial because this game was only for adults.

A controversial game is a game that cause a (sig) controversy in the society, for example GTA3 and the jury's case.

For example God of Wars is a violent game but not caused a masses of father claiming to the ban of the game.

Which game are in the category of controvercial?.


-Was sued in a jury?. YES then controversial.

-Created a new jurisprudence?. Yes then controversial (for example a game that create a new kind of censor/rule/law).

-Banned for anyone?. Yes then controversial.

-Moved a masses of people against the game?.


--Magallanes 17:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Biased article

Reading this article, it is very clear that it was written more as a manifesto trying to explain video games rather than an eludication of the issue and arguments surround video games. This article needs some major cleanup.

HORRIBLE!!!

this is horrible. we need to start a new article specificly on the controversy of VIOLENT video games. I mean, this article sucks. It goes on to much about what video games are and how they relate to other forms of media, and not enough on actually controversy.

That is because the controversy is so silly an inconsequential that most people realise it for what it is: the moral panic of the half century —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.102 (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the use of some descriptive words

Saying Quake III depicts some "Seriously Brutal Violence" does not sound very neutral to me... --NLUT

it is an opinionated statement, but is still neutral. The debate is not over if quake III is brutal or not, but over whether or not brutality should be censored.

To add

The following (large) section needs? to be merged into this article. Moved out of the old video game article — Slike | Talk | 12:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Critics of video games

From time to time, video games have been criticized by parents' groups, psychologists, politicians, and some religious organizations for allegedly glorifying violence, cruelty, and crime and exposing children to this violence. It is particularly disturbing to some adults that some video games allow children to act out crimes (for example, the Grand Theft Auto series), and reward them for doing so. Some studies have shown that children who watch violent television shows and play violent video games have a tendency to act more aggressively on the playground, and some people are concerned that this aggression may presage violent behavior when children grow to adulthood. These concerns have led to voluntary rating systems adopted by the industry, such as the ESRB rating system in the United States and the PEGI rating system in Europe, that are aimed at educating parents about the types of games their children are playing (or are begging to play).

Most studies, however, reach the conclusion that violence in video games is not causally linked with aggressive tendencies. This was the conclusion of a 1999 study by the U.S. government, prompting Surgeon General David Satcher to say, “we clearly associate media violence to aggressive behavior. But the impact was very small compared to other things. Some may not be happy with that, but that’s where the science is.” (Can anyone provide a citation for this quote? Thanks. -TheDaringDuke)This was also the conclusion of a meta-analysis by psychologist Johnathan Freedman, who reviewed over 200 published studies and found that the majority did not find a causal link.

Critics of movies, television, and books as a group look down on video games as an inferior form of entertainment. This is probably because of the observation that most video games have very little plot and even less character development, which may or may not be true. A frequent counterargument is that this is like complaining that a game of football does not contain much plot or character development, and that although video games include a narrative, they are really about acting in and against a virtual world, which is not primarily based upon passively seeing and hearing. Another point of view compares video games to the movies, which during the silent era were also considered mere entertainment.

Done now, except where redundant. Seahen 20:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing multilateral investigations

Found this snipped from a Swedish Debate of Parliament:

Nordicom fick år 1997 i uppdrag av Unesco att bilda ett informationscentrum, International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen, för att sprida information i hela världen om forskning kring barn, ungdomar och medievåld. En bakomliggande tanke är att förståelsen av frågor som rör barn och medievåld måste breddas och fördjupas via en effektiv kunskapsspridning. En övergripande utgångspunkt för Nordicoms arbete är konventionen om barnets rättigheter. Det är ur denna synvinkel begreppet våld betraktas. Verksamhetsområdet innefattar kunskap om våldshandlingar i TV-fiktions-program och långfilmer på bio, nyhets- och faktaprogram, video- och dataspel, bilder och texter tillgängliga på Internet. (In 1997 NordiCon was commissioned by Unesco to form a centre of information, The International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence, for worldwide dissimination of information of research regarding children, youth and media violence. An underlying thought is that the understanding of issues of children and media violence much be widened and deepened through efficient dissimination of information. An overarching point of origin for NordiCom's work is the Convention of Childrens' Rights. It is from this perspective the concepts of violence is viewed. The task area contains knowledge about acts of violence in television fiction and cinema movies, news and documentary programs, video and computer games, and images and texts available on the internet.) (Debate by the Swedish Parliament (in swedish)).

Does anyone have more information about this agency or results from it? Mikademus 08:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Early controversial games

DOOM anyone? Wolfenstein 3D anyone? -Anon.

That didn't have a TON. Wasn't there this one pit-fighting game that was close to MK as far as violence?


How about Barbarian's decapitation scenes?

I remember a game called Moonstone which came out on the Amiga, ST and PC, where you could hack monsters in two, who would then drop to the floor, and an arterial spray would shoot out of them. You could decapitate people, get your head bitten off, get strangled, or be smashed into large bloody chunks (rasam)

In fact, Barbarian as well as Last Ninja 2 were used by the Swedish Board of Childrens' Environment (Barnmiljörådet) under Margaretha Persson in the mid 80's as an example of violent media and video games in particular. Among other things she succeeded in having the distributors remove the plastic shuriken from the boxes of Last Ninja 2. (Article (in swedish) at IDG.se) Mikademus 08:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Barbarian is one of the few games of the 80s that were indicted in Germany. Others were Castle Wolfenstein (probably because of the swastikas, not violence), Paratrooper (!!) and Beverly Hills Cop. — 213.47.127.75 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

should it be mentioned that Nintendo and Sony don't release AO rated games?


Check out "Chiller," which was a coin-op video game released in 1986.

Removed Restorationist Note

I removed the note that mostly Restorationist Christian religions impose restrictions on their members use of some video games. I think Christian religions across the gamut have problems with some types of video games. —Frecklefoot 17:13, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Changed a technicality regarding GTA: San Andreas' "Hot Coffee" mod

No unlocking code was "included" on the disc. The patch changes a few bytes of code in the game, as does the Action Replay code. That's what all Action Replay codes do: They change a small part of the game (typically the instruction resposible for deducting health from the players health when hit, or something similar). It makes no difference to the arguments, but the technobabble floating around because of laymen with little experience with machine code trying to analyze the situation is annoying. The minigame was included, the code to unlock it was not.

most anybody could make a code to do something in the game that doesnt mean the people who made the game should get blamed the person above me is ignorant

no you are ignorant. very few people could make a code to hack the gta code and unlock the sex game. the ones that can are people who own illigal hardware or software, and are most definetly adults.

How so? The programmers put the minigame in there, and the patch made it available by changing a few things. Certainly not enough to create an entire minigame. Rockstar was at least partially at fault for leaving the code in the final version. --Optichan 22:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me take my time to explain to you an analogy. Say I leave a box full of explosives and tell a person not to open it or it would explode. Am I responsible if he opens it? Tell me if I am, because I don't believe I would be.

you are responsible for making the option available, the same way a parent is responsible for having a gun laying around his kid.

Anon has it right. Rockstar did fully disable the minigame in all release versions. They could not just simply remove it, as its assets were in use in other places. The entire controversy is insane, as NOBODY could accidentally enable the code. You must willingly change the "few bytes of code". Just like with the Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion "controversy", the game developers are being unjustly blamed for content on a disc which nobody will ever see unless they chose to do so.
And if you start blaming companies for that, where do you stop? Will the ESRB demand that games be made unmoddable in the future? If not, any modder can just swap textures. The only ones who will lose are the gamers unless this insanity ends soon. -- Jordi·✆</span<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">> 01:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I do remember experiencing a certain amount of shock when I was playing a Half Life MOD(not the original game, but fan-made content), and ran smack into a very revealing nude poster.--Vercalos 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

this happened to long ago to be relevnt now. It's water cooler joke.

YOU'RE water cooler joke. BURN. --Hawkian (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

.hack//quarantine

i have seen and displayed to many people a bit of hentai on the dvd included with .hack//quarantine. the game was rated T and never mentioned any nudity, ever. But there it was, and yet i have never heard any body mention this. This is even worse that the gta mod, for it was not hidden. It was just there. (for thoes of you who have .hack//q but havnt seen this, watch the end of the .hack//gift vid on the dvd.)

Removed Christian References

I removed the remaining paragraph about some Christian groups having problems with video games for lack of documentation and the fact that most video game critics are in fact not attacking them from a religious angle. The attacks are from the angle that video games turn kids into sociopaths. The religious notes are certainly relevant and should be restored if someone can cite sources and note actual churches with actual provable statements saying their members should not play video games.

Also, can Frecklefoot or someone else think of a video game with lots of blood and gore that was animated, before Mortal Kombat? The Bilestoad was an obvious citation to me, but despite the amputations (at 1 frame per second!) it didn't really show spines being ripped out of one's body. Tempshill 19:12, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

SNES tried to remove the gore. Didn't really work anyway did it?

Rename?

Should this page be titled "Video game criticism"?

I think the current title is suitable. —Frecklefoot 17:11, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This page should absolutely be moved to "Video game criticism" unless it changes significantly. It entirely covers only one side of the debate, and although it manages to throw in lots of weasel words doing it, it pretty much is a semi-encyclopaedic article on "Video game criticism", not the "Video game controversy". I'd like to know a good reason why the current title is suitable given the circumstances? DG 19:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Simple. It's not THE video game controversy...some simply controversy in video games. I think as a title it sums it up fairly well.
Rename, per DG. Seahen 18:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Rename, they are simply collection of criticism information, not the controversy. 219.83.2.52 06:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Rename, this article does not even begin to show both sides of the controvery. 206.113.142.245 (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Games with mature content, but no controversy

I can't remember the games Resident Evil, Silent Hill, or Time Crisis causing any controversies. They have mature content, yes, but I don't recall any controversy. Anyone? Tempshill 19:32, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, Resident Evil 2, 3, 4, and Code: Veronica have been indicted in Germany. — 213.47.127.75 17:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Time crisis I don't think is that bad. There is no blood or gore...it is mostly you shooting a bunch of virtual baddies. There are much worse games. Also, Resident Evil 4 was on the Family Media Guides "Top 10 most violent games of 2004". I dont know much about Silent Hill so i have no comment.

German and Korean violence regulations

I'd appreciate any additional relevant info from German and Korean editors on their respective violence regulations. Tempshill 07:54, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm not German, but I did work in the video game industry for several years and had to deal with issues with localizing games for Germany. The two big items I can think of are:
  • Blood in games can not be red. It either has to be removed altogether or of a different color. I think DOOM colored the blood green for the SNES version of this game, but I am not sure.
  • The depiction of the Nazi swastika is prohibited.
These are the only two big ones I remember, but there may be others. —Frecklefoot 17:11, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The German no red blood rule has been relaxed. While red blood, violence against humans and moderated splatter effekts are tollarated, using of the rag doll enging is not. And USK stands for unabhängige Selbstkontrolle (independent selfcontrol).

The most important law is §131 of the German penal code. It outlaws the depiction of "cruel or otherwise inhuman" acts of violence against humans, if the depiction expresses glorification of the acts, makes them seem harmless (Verharmlosung), or if the depiction is done in a way violating human dignity (the German constitution explicitely guards human dignity, this has led to some rather weird bans). News items and historical descriptions are an exception. On 2004-04-01 this law was amended to include not only humans, but also human-like characters. This probably made the green blood ploy pointless.
Other relevant laws are §86, which outlaws display of insignia of unconstitutional groups, and §130, which covers inciting hate against a group defined by race, religion, nation, or ethnicity.
Of course any game (or movie, book, whatever) that violates these laws will not just be indicted, but seized outright and then may not be sold at all, not even between private persons, though it may remain in private property. But especially §131 gives gives a good idea what the protectors of youth are looking for. — 213.47.127.75 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
After some more research I find that very few games have actually been seized because of the abovementioned laws. The only mainstream game ever to be seized because of §86a seems to be Wolfenstein 3D, the only games seized for §131 were the Sega Genesis version of Mortal Kombat, all versions of Mortal Kombat II and the PlayStation version of Mortal Kombat 3. Then there are a couple of racist homebrews probably seized because of §130. — 213.47.127.75 23:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for reference - even in the U.S., references to Nazism are sometimes removed; see the Super Nintendo adaptation of Castle Wolfenstein for an example. --L. 19:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

POV text removed

I removed the text:

Many video game players are born to members of such religious organizations. However, some of those video game players decide to leave their parents' churches, move out, and go their on way of life, partly because their doctrine's restrictions on and scrutiny of video games are contrary to their beliefs.

It is very POV and speculative, at best. If there are several documented cases of such situations happening, then it can be re-added. For example, many people leave their born faith for reasons other than the church's stance on video games. If Johnny plays video games and left the church, it does not mean he left the church because of video games. Also, most people move out of their parent's homes at one point or another (one would hope). It is also common for many to stop attending their parent's church or abiding to their faith. Many of these people aren't gamers at all. You can't pin it all on video games. —Frecklefoot 15:07, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I appreciate all of Tedius's contributions to the page but am also not very happy about the apparent axe he is grinding on the religion angle. The article seems to cast attacks from the religious establishments as a major issue for video gaming, but I seldom, if ever, see or think about this. I certainly don't think "religion has been a critical issue to the video game community". Tempshill 04:37, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I do not pin it all on video games. Motion pictures, comic books, and the Internet are similar situations in this case. I have left my born faith (or original religion) Jehovah's Witnesses because of their overly restrictive stance on video games, television programs, and motion pictures. Some have left their born faith for similar reasons. I know someone who left Jehovah's Witnesses for a similar reason I left that faith. Many people leave their born faith for the same reasons, and others leave for different reasons. I view Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult of Christianity. I believe my totalitarian parents and their religious organization attempted to brainwash me and cause me psychological abuse, and their religious organization gave me erroneous teachings. Tedius Zanarukando 00:31, 21 Nov 2004 (EST)

Your anecdotal experiences are not neutral, and should not be in an encyclopedia. If you can cite neutral sources showing this trend to be just that, a major trend, and not just your personal rant about your parents, I'd be happy to have it back in. Until then, however, please keep your opinions out of Wikipedia's Article namespace.Kertrats | Talk 00:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I am (still?) a Christian at 18, and have recently started playing Counter-Strike on a regular basis. I have also played other 'violent' games, such as GTA, Half-Life, Medal of Honour etc. and have been playing games involving guns and 'killing' since I was old enough to hold a joystick. I suppose, however, that as a games programmer I see 'violence' in games simply in terms of 3D models interacting, sprites colliding, etc., not as actual violence. IMHO, there is no contradiction between this kind of programming logic and the Bible. As for games corrupting young minds... well, if your kid copies everthing he/she sees on TV, giving them GTA to play probably isn't the smartest move. Having said that, violence has been around a lot longer than video games have been. GTA was based on car crime, not the other way round, and Cain never touched a video game... Sticksoft 22:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not just my totalitarian parents who try to brainwash me. It is also my brothers and many of my close maternal relatives who share the same religion as my parents who do so. My brothers gave in to my parents' wishes. I am also disappointed about an fMRI research conducted two months ago that seems to conclude that there is a causal link between so-called 'violent' video games and real-world violence. It was focusing only on the brain. It is only the brain itself that may not distinguish between simulated violence and real-world violence. The entertainment communities, including me and the video game community, distinguish between the brain and the mind, but the media pundits and anti-gaming activists do not. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 04:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What is this:

  • August 2003, Entertainment Software Association battles against governmental regulation of video games.

What country is this in? Tempshill 04:37, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The country in this case is the United States. Tedius Zanarukando 03:01, 11 Nov 2004 (EST)

Two of the links under "Right-Wing Viewpoints" do not work: Video Game Rating System & Coalition Against Violent Video Games.

Left-Wing/Right Wing

I'm not sure if the left-wing/right-wing framework helps understand the controversy, or is even correct. This controversy has nothing to do with the big picture communism to fascism (left to right) political spectrum. Nor does the controversy even fit in with the contemporary American scene. Isn't it most often Democrats (supposedly leftists) who are drafting the legislation that deals with video game content?

jberk

I agree. What alternative headings do you suggest? —Frecklefoot 15:26, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)


How about simply "Video Game Opponents" and "Video Game Proponents"?--Jberk 01:06, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. :-) —Frecklefoot 15:02, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Searching the web, I don't find any usages of "left-wing" and "right-wing" to refer specifically to a person's stance on video games, except in Wikipedia pages edited by Tedius. That leads me to believe that it is not a very common meaning of the terms. And the usual meanings of left-wing/right-wing don't apply because people from both sides of the political spectrum have been alternately for and against video game censorship. --AaronW 01:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My guess is that it's an POV Anti-Right thing to try to make Righties sound like overzelous jackasses.

Propaganda video games

Apart from Ethnic Cleansing and Islamic Fun, are there any other games which are controversial for political content? GCarty 17:24, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about Under Ash? Please sign your posts with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter adds a time-stamp to your signature, like so: — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:06, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! I was wondering how it was done! GCarty 17:24, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ghost Recon 2 has apparently been banned (or rather "denied approval") in South Korea due to a mission that takes place in near-future North Korea (according to this story.) - Zoganes 12:23, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
Also, Hitman 2: Silent Assassin was controversial amongst Sikhs for a level that alluded to 'Operation Blue Star' -- Zoganes 12:50, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Rewards for running over pedestrians?

I have a problem with the phrase:

" Grand Theft Auto 3 ("GTA 3") by Rockstar Games, in which the principal game activity is carjacking, and once a car is stolen, the player is rewarded for running over pedestrians and shooting rival gang members to death as he runs missions for crime bosses."

I really can't remember any missions on GTA III or GTA VC where the player was rewarded for running over pedestrians, quite the contrary: it's usually easier to finish a mission by avoiding pedestrians, since running over them has the unpleasant effect of alerting the police to your criminal ways :-) Yes, I'm nitpicking, but it's in good faith: I want this article to be as accurate as possible.

Can anyone prove me wrong in that regard?

I can... perdestrian hit and runs are OPTIONAL. In fact, I remember I was going fast in a car in this particular game and I wanted to avoid a perdeatrian but there was oncoming car so barely a choice. 164.58.215.146 19:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Duly noted, and changed "rewarded" to "allowed," with some other changes to make the paragraph sensical. Ian Pugh 02:21, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jagripino 21:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In GTA2 you receive money for running over pedestrians, I believe it's the same in GTA3, GTA Vice City and GTA San Andreas. It's a GTA thing. Switcher (talk) 21:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, only in GTA2.NightBeAsT 22:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have played all of the GTA games (yes, even the London 1969 expansion pack). As far as I recall, both GTA and GTA2 had that feature where you get rewarded instantly for running over pedestrians (although the amount of money wasn't very much and it easily attracted the attention of the police). In GTA3, Vice City, and San Andreas, the payments were no longer automatic, in the sense that collisions no longer instantly incremented one's money. But especially in Vice City and San Andreas, there is some incentive to hit certain rich-looking tourists and drug dealers, who occasionally drop large amounts of cash on the ground as they fall down. Of course, one still has to disembark from the vehicle and run around to get the cash. And hitting pedestrians still has to be balanced against the risk of attracting police attention (and the hassle and cost of going to the Pay N' Spray Shop). --Coolcaesar 01:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In GTA3 I'm pretty sure you receive money for ramming into other cars. I'm not sure about peds though. I know it's not this way in VC and SA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M2K 2 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
No, no rewards are given for hitting other vehicles in GTA 3 or any GTA games later than number 3. As for before that, I'm not entirely sure. Littelbro14 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

America's Army

Maybe we should mention the controversy this game? I don't know enough about it to write about it. Mikkel 23:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know of any controversy regarding America's Army... --Wulf 04:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
The controversy wasn't that it was a violent game, it was controversial because some people are, excuse me, militantly anti-military, and object to its very basis, that it was a promotional (advertising) tool for the US Army. The controversy was that millions of kids would play the game, then go visit their local recruiter, which was exactly what the Army wanted (and why they made the game)... but I'm not sure if there have been any reports on "America's Army" actually influencing any military recruits. Fieari 21:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I would like to put this article on NPOV because much of this emphazizes the bad side. While that is what the article is about, it shouldn't overlook the other side, such as interviews of anti-censorship people and other things we refer to as; The Rest of the Story. Much of the stuff above is even changes of anti NPOV and thus it needs to be in the list.

Particulary for the "Kill the Hatians" and "Kill the Cubans" remarks in the article. First of all, those were the names of the different gangs. Secondly the fact that the two different gangs were rivals. And thirdly, "Kill the Cubans" wasn't in the game. I think it would look better if it at least said alleged racism, and gave the two points I put above.

  • Sounds fine, but if you could aid in this, I would appreciate it. As it stands, you are correct in that the controversy is what it's all about, and while I feel there is ample counterbalance for that other side, there is always room for improvement. Also, please understand that I have already been working extensively on this article to make it as NPOV as possible, reverting it from an extremely biased view on anti-censorship. I have moved on to other articles and other priorities, and help is necessary; be bold in editing pages. The Vice City paragraph in question has been reworded (great game by the way, played through it twice). Ian Pugh 00:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • True, but keeping in mind that this is controversy, that means you have to put even more effort into making this NPOV, as this is a topic in debate constantly, and Wikis who check this out deserve a balanced view.
  • Another thing to note, does the ESRB really deserve to be put in pro censorship? While it may cause it, it's really just rating the games. It's not actively trying to surpress them.

In American Army it is used as a drafting tool for the U.S. military to show the military is and is realesed to all kids with a rating of teen and that is not right.

  • A: It isn't a drafting tool as it does not force you to join the army. It merely shows you how the army is, regardless of how sugarcoated they make it.
  • B: name something in the game, that would give it an MA rating. The blood is minimal, there is no sex/vugararities, and it dosn't have drug use.

24.95.67.193

I am aware that this article is focusing on the dark side of the video game controversy and overlooking the light side of the controversy. This article was originally emphasizing the religious branch of the dark side of the video game controversy. It overlooked the light side of the video game controversy in its original version. The names mentioned are usually names of pro-censorship people. One recent external link has a link to someone who is totally pro-censorship, believing that so-called violent video games is an omnieval danger (or a danger for all ages). There have been enough interviews with pro-censorship people. There should be interviews with anti-censorship people, such as Doug Lowenstein and Steven Johnson. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 05:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

a funny on indiscriminate discrimination

Don't countries suck? "Assume and you make an ass out of you and me; let countries be and you make a cunt try to be." lysdexia 00:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should this be deleted? --Wulf 04:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Controvertial games?

I've never heard of controversies surrounding a good three-fourths of that list. I'm in the US. Are there bigger controversies over different games in other countries? (Or is the author manufacturing controversy by coming up with obsicre titles with extremely questionable themes?)

Video game censorship is a threat to the video game industry

Externally imposed video game censorship and governmental regulation of video games do not only hurt the video game community, it is also financially dangerous to the video game industry, especially if the censorship applies to adults. That includes religiously and governmentally imposed video game censorship. Video game companies can lose millions of dollars to video game censorship and regulation. Video game censorship is getting more and more dangerous to the video game industry as the console generations pass by. It has been a big issue during the sixth generation era, and it will be more dangerous to the video game industry in the seventh generation era, due to the increasing development consoles to keep up with the technological advancement of the seventh generation era. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 19:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC).

Goodness knows I agree with you. In fact, I've written to various MPs here in Germany where video game censorship is perhaps the strictest in Europe and the US. There's a rather large debate about how removing violence from games is censorship, and how the German Constitution is censorship. However, what you have stated is very POV and needs to be countered. Perhaps I might write something on the article a little later on about the issue, but it'll be hard to keep it NPOV. Jamyskis 13:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The video game controversy is getting more and more rampant. Those studies that favor the dark side of the video game controversy are composed of ludicrously small samples. The American Psychological Association has been accused of encouraging video game censorship. They have deceptive researches and false beliefs. There is no link between so-called "violent" video games and negative social consequences. That adopted resolution is a dumb resolution. I am oppose to much of what is saying. They believe that exposure to so-called violent video games increases aggressive behavior, increases aggressive thoughts, increases angry feelings, decreases helpful behavior, and increases physiological arousal. Those findings are false. I am opposed to every person or organization who supports or encourages video game censorship. We gamers and the anti-censorship should go put an end to the threats of video game censorship. I heard the same study that Jessica Nicoll and Kevin Kieffer had cited recently last year. The truth is: There is no correlation between so-called "violent" video games and aggressive behavior or academic failure or violent criminal activity. Generational conflict is the reason for the media lie involving video games and violence. Anyone who opposes video game censorship is my ally. Anyone who supports video game censorship is my enemy. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 09:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Illinois law

Shouldn't the Illinois videogame law(s) be mentioned?

See: 94th General Assembly, HB4023


--Wulf 03:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, if anyone can remember all the funny controversey and events that blew up here when the governor launched it. Remember how the state gave out the wrong web address, and some critic bought the URL and placed pro-game comments? And how it fueled arguments about just how intelligent the gov't was in dealing with technology? --L. 19:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Not sure if it'd fit terribly well here, but the ESA just released the high price (~$650,000) of attempting to draft legislation of this nature which is inherantly unconstitutional. --Keyne 15:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute settlement

This page has been sitting with the POV tag for too long without anything happening in here.

As I see it there are two options:

  • Rename the article to "Video game criticism" and remove the POV tag, or
  • Rewrite the article so it focuses more on the controversy rather than just enumerating all the aspects of criticism against video games

I favour the first option. However, if someone is willing to do the work the second option could work as well. TH 15:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article video game controversy is the original name and has been there for a long time. The name "video game criticism" sounds unilateral (or one-sided). Another name of the article is "video game censorship." Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 05:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The article's name is fine.Amren (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.

That's my pasted message. I'll remove the tag, as that's what I'm doing and I detect a fair consensus here. Obviously it may get put back..Jjdon (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

amber sparks

does this game even exist? i googled it and found nothing. i looked on gamefaqs and found nothing. I looked on ign and found nothing. is this game so bad that everyone destroyed all trace of it just to forget about it?

lol. I was just about to ask the same thing. also, the controversy "for intense violence by a 7 yr old" is jokable. --TBH 13:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


California Bills AB 1792 & 1793

I am adding a direct mention of the recently-signed California law prohibiting sales of violent games to minors as I just wrote an artcile about the bills behind it. That Wikipedia article I am linking to this page.--Mike 21:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

From the "Criticism of violence and crime in video games" section.

It is not legal for a child under 18 to play an adult only (or certificate 18 in UK) game under ANY circumstances.

Where did this come from? The BBFC say the following on their site:

No-one younger than 18 may rent or buy an ‘18’ rated video.

Obviously we are talking about games here, but the law on BBFC certificates does not differ on video games to my knowledge. Heck look at Wikipedia's own articles. From the BBFC article:

Everything the BBFC rates receives a certificate along with 'consumer advice' advising the public who it is suitable for. If a certificate specifies that a film or video game is only suitable for someone over a certain age, then only those over that age may see it at a cinema or buy it.

I'm removing this now, until someone proves otherwise..--Cyberdude93 01:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Good call on removing that. The rating is only an age recommendation and does not stop anyone from playing the game. It only affects who games are sold and rented to and informs people the suitability of its content. --Optichan 17:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced POV material on this page

I was quite surprised by the contents of this page, which are very clearly POV material which there was no attempt to source. Please read these two pages, WP:NPOV and WP:V, and add the material only if it meets Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability, and if it is written from a neutral point of view. Otherwise, I shall remove it again on sight. --DannyWilde 02:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversy? I think not...

They say Vid Games creates violence. I have to counter by saying this.

  • First people blamed demons for making people violent.
  • Then it was TV/Movies that had fingers pointed at them.
  • Then it was music like hip hop and rap that would wipe culture as we know it off the map.
  • Now it is the turn of the Vid Games.

When will our culture learn it is not the makeup of what we do for fun (or in the demon case, who we pray to), but what our upbringing is, and/or if we have mental health issues or not.

Yes, the history of media controversy repeats itself. There is a probability that another event of media controversy will happen. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 04:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
We shouldn't forget comic books, whose arduous journey through the grinder of the 1950s parallels the modern day controversy associated with videogames more closely than any other media. --Hawkian (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Too Sarcastic?

So my comments were removed from the main article due to extreme sarcasm (I would have removed them too), but here now (soon to be buried in the discussion page) is my own historical take on video game violence:


It is widely accepted that Adolf Hitler was playing GTA III the day before he decided to invade Poland in 1939. It is also believed that John Wilkes Booth in the weeks prior to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln practiced by going on "rampages" in the fictional GTA world. These two examples support the theory that violence did not exist until video games were invented by Ghengis Khan in 1206, just prior to his military conquests which slaughtered entire populations of Eurasia.


Of course that theory would mean that the Roman Legions were a peaceful bunch... :-)

Y'know, I agree. They not only blamed rap and hip-hop recently, they also blamed rock muic a long time ago. People don't wanna hear that they've raised their children poorly or that they weren't perfect. They want a scapegoat. They want to be able to blame change or diferences on something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gannon 13 (talk • contribs)
Those comments are almost BJAODN or Uncyclopedic. Very funny satire.Davidizer13 19:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


I agree, and not to go off topic, but the mention of rock music made me think of Jimmy Hendrix and the theories about his death (actually government murder?). The older, more conservative (i'm not suggesting right wing necessarily) generations have always been dissapointed with changing movements of youth, and need a scapegoat. In this case, the scapegoat was Jimmy Hendrix, and the government didn't like his message, so they bumped him. Again, it's nothing but a shot at the First Amendment, and rock music/video games have been taking the hardest hits. I also believe that any youth who would pick up a gun and shoot up their school would have to be pretty flippin sick to begin with, and that video games aren't what made them that way. Virtually every teenage guy out there has played some kind of violent game, so saying that a child criminal played one means absolutely nothing. Well, i'm done ranting for now, funny satire in that article btw. 

   -User:SmittyMcLuckFase  13:07, 21 Febraury 2006

movie parodies?

How is "movie paradoies" apart of controversy? is it making fun of the movie or something else?

Pece Kocovski 05:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

banned games.

Where there any games that were banned before they were released?

Pece Kocovski 10:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Quake3 Blood.jpg

I know my monitor doesn't handle dark images very well, but is this image a bit too dark? Because I can't see much in it. - RoyBoy 800 16:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Splinter Cell Chaos Theory

This game has not had any controversy, and the torture wasn't even as intense as in other games. You get slapped, punched, and choked for a short period of time, and none of it is graphic. I'm removing it.

Eden-Nathan Zada merge

I don't see the relevance of merging this into the article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I second this. The Eden-Nathan Zada article is nothing more then a short description of what the individual did. It makes not reference to video games or any controversy at all. DyslexicDan 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I’m taking out the merge banner on both the Eden-Nathan Zada article and the Computer and video games article because the discussions only have questioned the point of the merge and no action is being taken. If anyone objects they are more then welcome to revert the change. DyslexicDan 18:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Farenheit game

I added some information on the game Farenheit, concerning its sexual content, because the decision made to remove said content from the US version of the game could be seen in direct awareness of the what was happening around the 'hot coffee' scandal.

Also corrected some typos :)

--Morda Statca 23:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Hillary vs. the Xbox: Game over" no longer seems to lead to a news article. I will not remove it myself but if anyone else cares to, feel free.

Edit: Also, "Video Game Rating System" seems to be broken.

This afternoon I added Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence (MAVAV) to the list of opponents/proponents of censorship. Some anonymous IP user deleted it, but I really don't understand why. I do think it deserves to be in the list, so I just wanted to let you all know I re-added that link with a reason. If someone disagrees, I'll hear it I guess. Greetings, (RagingR2 21:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC))


Ya its legit... but these ppl r nutz 68.126.207.160 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they are, but that doesn't mean an objective article about video game controversy shouldn't mention them. (RagingR2 08:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC))


The whole introduction is about gaming in the USA

This article is not specifically about controversy in the USA, yet the whole first section has glaringly USA-centric writing.

Among others, critics of video games sometimes include parents' groups, politicians, organized religion groups, and other special interest groups, and may become a part of new laws and legislation depending on current court cases and debates at Capitol Hill.

Does nobody else's eyes bulge out slightly when they read things like this? The whole thing needs to be rewritten, from a POV that doesn't make the article seem like the USA is the only country that has video games. That sentance doesn't even mention 'in the USA' at all, an omission that is pretty difficult not to notice. Even if it did though, there's no excuse for talking entirely about one country in the intro. Richard001 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, they were invented here in America. But I see your point. I think the reason this article is so U.S.-centric is because (1) we have such a huge population and thus make up the largest proportion of English Wikipedia editors and (2) we were also the first to start loading all our media content into giant databases like LexisNexis and ProQuest, so American politics, past and present, is probably the easiest of any country to research online. The only solution, I think, is for editors in other countries to go dig up books in libraries and research the controversy (or lack of) there. Of course, that might be difficult if other countries don't have public libraries as ubiquitous or as easy to access as ours.
On the other hand, there might be a book somewhere here on the comparative sociology of video game controversies, but I doubt it.
Comparative sociology by definition is extremely difficult to do because good sociology work has to be done on the ground by people who know the territory. For example, the first comprehensive comparative sociological work on the legal profession was published in 1987 (I read it for my recent rewrite of Lawyer). Just putting it together required a 1984 conference at UCLA and the participation of dozens of lawyers and law professors from around the world, and even then the Communist countries were left out. --Coolcaesar 06:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


unfairness

I don't get it. Movies have the same intenity of content as movies, yet noone's trying to ban them. There's also the whole"PG-13/T" rating thing. In 1998 or '99 the ESRB banned the word "shit" from Teen rated games, yet PG-13 rated movies are allowed to say the word "fuck".

I am well aware of that as well. As you can see, video games are a pop culture pariah. A pop culture pariah is defined as a form of media that is singled out for criticism and censorship, receiving more restriction and scrutiny than other forms of media. Rock & roll was like that back in the 1950's. Major retail outlets refuse to sell video games containing nudity. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 07:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo Wii may heat up the controversy

Because of the nature of the Wii controller, the Nintendo Wii may fuel up the video game controversy like Grand Theft Auto series has. The Nintendo Wii is said to have the controller allow precise imitation of real world violence. I have a bad feeling about this. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 07:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it until someone starts making these claims. --Optichan 15:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Americanisation

Noticed that this article is centred on US laws in places and needs to be gone by specifying which legislation applies to which parts of the world.

Pathetic

You know, I know this doesn't make much of a contribution to the article but--WHY ARE PEOPLE SO DOGGONE IRRATIONAL?!! My mom hated, absolutely hated video games and she refused to let me get even a real-time strategy! She said video games are such a waste of time that it's evil and that people who play any kind of digital game are turned into zombies! It makes me so mad how people take their anti-video game sentiment to this extreme! What the heck is wrong with video games? Why are they considered a waste of time? They are NOT a waste of time (at least not games that aren't related to Grand Theft Auto or some game like that)!! My parents wouldn't even let me play fifteen minutes worth a day! IT'S SO DOGGONE IRRITATING! I can't even see much of a difference between them and board games! Good grief! Tell me, what purpose does this controversy serve except to try to get rid of the violence and sexual stuff (of which I dissaprove, but my mom didn't care whether or not they had that, she wouldn't let us play)? Scorpionman 01:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice rant. Your mother is technophobic. AKismet 05:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Not really, I mean we have a nice computer but she hates video games! I have no clue why! She says they're a waste of time--I don't think they are. They're fun, dang it! That's a good enough reason to play! Scorpionman 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ask her if she thinks all forms of entertainment are a waste of time (such as TV, internet etc.) if she says yes try to explain to her the value of play. If that doesn't work find stuff she does for fun and call them a waste of time and try to stop her from doing them.70.40.56.46 00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
WHAT?! Not even a nice RTS?! I couldn't imagine life without Starcraft or Age of Empires. Aha...maybe that sounds a bit to obsessive. Revise that: I couldn't imagine life being very fun without Starcraft or AoE.Littelbro14 22:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe your grades don't quite match up to her expectations :) . Mine certainly don't.
Unforutnately it is statistically true that video games and excessive use of them generally make you do worse at school- because you are so busy playing them, however, NOT because the games somehow screw you up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.132.2 (talk) 10:00, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Your mother is ignorant and so is mine. I like to point out that at least in video games, you are doing something. You are thinking and developing strategy and actually involving your mind, not just staring at a tv. Don't get me wrong, I love an epic movie, but I can only take so much before I need to do something less mind numbing like a video game (possibly the most mentally intensive things on Earth). 206.113.142.245 (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If it's RTS's you're interested in, point out that Rise of Nations/Age of Empires have both historical teaching value and critical thinking. I sure wouldn't know what a mangonel was otherwise. --Hawkian (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Japanese attitudes towards gore

As mentioned in the article, games like MK were frowned upon in Japan, but games like Biohazard and Samurai Spirits, which are just as if not more gory, were allowed. As mentioned in the Samurai Spirits article, this is more due to the violence in those games being 'acceptable' within the confines of those games (i.e. it makes sense) as opposed to fantastical otherworldy violence of MK. Do you think we should add this to the article? I'd add it myself, but I want to think of a better way to phrase it (as you can probably tell, English isn't my greatest gift!) 207.172.52.41 01:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-critical points of view

This whole section needs to be sourced. If not, I will delete it.

I mean seriously, "*As with the advent of the internet, it has been shown that video games at least help children, teenagers and others to read, communicate and spell properly as subtitles are present in many games and therefore have a positive rather than negative effect on the human psyche..."

I've never heard such rubbish. --Farquaadhnchmn 19:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Rise up

Our goverment is trying to degrade games and every thing else.Let us start our attack now.Video games will go away without action. Attack all wikipedia pages that have anti-video game slime on them!

Attack now!This rubbish has gone on long past its usefulness.It never had any but any way attack now!

Encouraging vandalism is hardly the best way to rally support for your cause. 164.116.126.143 18:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow This article is Rubbish

and badly written to boot.

Actual Addendum

From the well-written FAQ on videgame violence at the bottom

"Several major gaps remain in the violent video game literature. One especially large gap is the lack of longitudinal studies testing the link between habitual violent video game exposure and later aggression, while controlling for earlier levels of aggression and other risk factors. Indeed, of the four major types of empirical studies mentioned earlier, this is the only type missing. There are such studies focusing on television violence but none on video games."

I think the above should be inserted somewhere i'm just not sure where. At any rate, the article at the bottom "Myths Facts, and Unanswered Questions" should be cited more methinks. While admittedly i'm a bit peeved at its findings, they're ultimately wholly empirical and the lack of longitudinal studies could cast the debate in a more reasonable light. If the effect of Videogame violence correlates with the long term effects of TV violence, it should contribute to a long term minimal increase in violence.

There is one portion of note in the article, he draws the analogy between servings of videogame violence and second hand smoke. It's a faulty means of trying to place that fact in a decent enough perspective. My 2 Cents and a quarter.

Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty

Some one add Metal Gear Solid 2 on the list for terrorism. I don't remaber hearing or reading controversy bout Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty . I'm removeing it .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.24.245 (talk • contribs) date.

I don't see why not.--Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 13:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Germany section uncited

I tagged the Germany section as unreferenced since it currently has no footnotes or citations at all. It's possible that some of the references used for other sections also verify the information in the Germany section, but at a minimum footnotes should be added to point out what information is verified by what reference. Information that isn't yet verified by a reference should have an additional citation added to an appropriate source. Dugwiki 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Also this part: "In December 2006, the German government proposed legislature to consider acts of violence against human-like characters in video games similar to violence against real life people. The bill was introduced by the states of Bavaria and Lower Saxony. Those found guilty of "cruel violence on humans or human-looking characters" could face fines or jail time of up to 12 months. It applies to developers, retailers, and consumers." is completely hilarious and wrong. Although the CSU, a conservative party from Bavaria and Lower Saxony, did indeed introduce a bill concerning video games, it's extremely over-exaggerated here! Basically they want to have higher age-ratings and very violent games banned completetely. However, this bill has not yet become law and propably never will! Killing an "human-like character" in a video game is not considered a crime and will most-likely never be in Germany! So I know remove this part of the article. 83.135.208.38 02:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Major Fixes

I've tried to fix the first part of this article, which was blatantly POV, full of weasel words and extremely badly-written, like a fifth-grader's school essay. But I have a flu and I don't think my rewrite was still good enough. I invite anybody to try to rewrite the first part of the article to try to make it look like an actual encyclopedia entry. EDIT: Never mind. I actually just did my first revert and fixed the page back to the way it was before some loser crappified it.203.131.167.26 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but my eyes are bleeding.....

The text appears riduculously small in the article. Its a tad bit painful to read. Any fix for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.67.215.171 (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

All the popular web browsers have ways to resize text. Does this article look different than other articles somehow? --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Something interesting to note

Note how the rate of violent crime decreases just after 1994. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Now compare that to this. http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/halocrime.gif

I DELETED AN EXTERNAL LINK!

I DELETED THE EXTERNAL LINK ABOUT THE SIMS BECAUSE ON THE WEB PAGE, THERE WAS A LINK CONNECTING TO SOME TYPE OF PORN. (unsigned)

Wikipedia is not censored. However, if you find a link to a site containing pornographic material, please make sure to not it in the link. A simple "(link contains adult material)" notice will do. PyroGamer 15:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cause and Effect Speculation

What if the cause and effect of video game violence was mixed up? Is it at all possible that people predisposed to aggression and violence would play more violent games inherently as a result, rather than violent games actually making people predisposed to aggression and violence?

Also, according to the APA studies done, people of all age groups were interviewed. But if the study is true, and violent video games DO increse aggression, would it also be possible that the APA simply neglected to take into account what games these people played prior to the study?

I have a theory concerning my last paragraph, as well. Assuming for a moment that the APA study is conclusive and accurate, then people who play violent video games have increased aggression levels. But, if they played violent video games beforehand, one of two things may be possible. The first is that there are people who are predisposed to violence, and the games they play are reflections of that. The second is that playing games like Doom or Wolfenstein at a young age and continuing the tradition has a greater effect than following the rating system (i.e.: playing E- or T-rated games at an early age, and only playing M-rated games at age 17 or older as specified). In essence, if one were to follow the ratings system to the letter (no pun intended), I believe the result would undoubtedly be that one would see a vast decrease in aggression levels. I have a friend who, when viewed on an objective basis, has been described as "sociable" and "charitable". He was brought up on this method of ratings (they are, after all, in place for a reason). Granted, one person isn't enough to influence data, but I still think it warrants further investigation.

cali

i found it funny that arnold shwartzaneiger(<--what ever) passed a bill censoring games, because now people cant even purchase his own terminator game. what a crock of shit.

Unresearched

Anybody who can seriously say video games lead to violence needs to actually try a game. I've personally played violent games since I was about six, heck, one of the first games I beat was Mortal Kombat 2. I am now sixteen, and still play violent games, some of my favorites are Resident Evil, Resistance: Fall of Man, DOOM, Devil May Cry and Metal Gear Solid. I am not a violent youth. I may be a bit antisocial, but it has nothing to do with games. Same goes for music, I listen to Metal, I know it's usually got some pretty heavy lyrics, dealing with stuff like satanism, violence, sex and drugs, but again, it doesnt affect me. Anyone can murder, it has nothing to do with passtimes or music or anything. You could have a seventy year old man who likes playing chess and listens to polka killing someone. As for some controversial games, namely DOOM, the reason it depicts satanism is because you're fighting demons. I can't see how you can blow away the minions of Hell without reference to Hell. I'm not supporting violent acts however, but people need to use the grey blob between their ears once in a while. Maybe I'll copy 9/11 because I played a Flight Sim and messed up and crashed into a building. Maybe I'll go start rolling random objects into a giant ball Katamari Damaci style. Hell, maybe I'll go watch the News, cuz God knows it's less violent than video games *sarcasm*

On a seperate note, Jack Thompson, the anti-gaming lawyer from Florida is extremely unprofessional about this subject. He made a challenge for someone to make a game where you kill game designers and he would donate to the charity of their choice. Someone made the game. He didn't pay. The makers of the Webcomic Penny Arcade decided to donate instead, and sent him flowers. He said something about them getting money from terrorists and threw the flowers out. He also sued Penny Arcade for harassing him because of that. If only he realized that he's just making a big joke of himself to gamers, kinda like Uwe Boll. Anyone who feels the same way should try to find the video of Jack Thompson in court for Contempt. Man I wish I had one of those "I Hate Jack Thompson" shirts, cause that guy needs to do some serious research. Midgitboy 16:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


Amusing vandalism

I just removed a piece of vandalism that somehow deserves to be saved for posterity. The whole section Criticism related to children's social development was replaced with the following text:

In light of recent scandals, fear that children would be morally scarred for life by beating hookers in some games or for the way some games glorify murder and sex, the US Government, as an alternative to "censorship" passed the "Parenting Act" at the beginning of the country's history, which allows any parent or legal guardian of a child to restrict and/or allow the use of videogames and any other form of media or entertainment. This controversial move to allow "parenting" in every American household was met with its own criticisms, particularly from Anti-video game groups who believe that "parenting" cannot solve the threat video games pose to a child's soul.

213.47.127.75 13:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Copy-edited a little, hope it stays on this page forever. :)--Hawkian (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Specific kinds of controversial games" removed

I removed the sub-section Specific kinds of controversial games within the External Links. This article is about video game controversy, not controversial video games, and there are way too many external links already. — 213.47.127.75 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

All this Controversy!!!!

I will first admit that I am not an avid gamer; nor am I even close. I game only socially, at friend's parties or the like. HOwever, I would like to comment on the obvious controversy of this article, and the discussions pertaining to it.

The primary reason that everyone thinks it only provides a one-sided argument is because the facts are 90% against video games; it is true that they create gender stereotypes and in extreme cases, cause addiction. The violence demonstrated in T-rated games is, in many cases, far worse than is shown on television or in movies with the same ratings. Granted, it is the role of the parents to monitor the violence content of video games, but the point stands: they send violent messages to easily impressionable teenage minds. This isn't opinion, guys, it's FACT.
I will concede to the point that video games are a highly social activity, and they do improve fine motor skills and help with ADHD in some juvenile cases. However, I think we can all agree that this Wikipedia article is giving the straight facts, and telling the history of the video game controversy.
Perhaps I have a bias; some of my closest friends and the first guy I ever really cared about were lost to the inescapable world of video games and MMORPG's such as World of Warcraft. Of course, they are the extreme, but I feel that humans should never choose fictional game characters over spending time with those they most care about, or choose to live in a fantasy world over the real one. These types of games lead to escapism, which often leads to complete seclusionism. This is why parents worry about their children, and why I worry about many of my friends.
Anyway, I am not trying to make anyone mad, or start a heated argument. I am simply showing that this article provides facts and not bias.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.204.114.239 (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't want to sound like an ass, but you aren't "showing that this article provides facts." The bit that opposes video game censorship can just as easily be taken as fact, and therefore you show nothing.

-Raikoh_Minamoto Raikoh Minamoto 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ocarina of Time...

There is a lot of subliminal controversy in this game. I believe it should be mentioned.


Yeah, I got klinda freaked out when I was playing it when it came out (I think I was about 11) and reached the castle. Zelda would have been what? About 13 or so? Kinda odd that a thirteen year old girl seems to have hams stuffed in her shirt Midgitboy 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I searched on google and couldn't find anything. Have any links? Would be interesting to read about. I don't remember anything along those lines when I played it, and I usually catch stuff like that.--Shadowdrak 19:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

FTC report

Kotaku reported that the FTC said that the video game industry is doing a better self enforcement job that either the film or music industries. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Highly publicized tragedies

This whole section badly needs to be reworded and expanded, putting these events into context rather than showing the supposed video game cause without any supporting evidence or background information. In the same section, "The two shooters had been inspired by Grand Theft Auto III" doesn't really sound like NPOV to me, and desperately needs rewording. 64.246.156.151 21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


There are several errors and grave omissions in the Publicized Incidents Section.

Case 1: In November 2001, 21-year-old American Shawn Woolley committed suicide after what his mother claimed was an addiction to EverQuest. Also Woolley's suicide note metioned that "I think the way the game is written is that when you first start playing it, it is fun, and you make great accomplishments. And then the further you get into it, the higher level you get, the longer you have to stay on it to move onward, and then it isn't fun anymore. But by then you're addicted, and you can't leave it.".[15]

That quote is actually from Woolley's mother, not a suicide note, as the linked article clearly states. That's her opinion, and there is no indication she has actually played the game. I suggest a registered user make the necessary correction.

Case 2:In February, 2003, 16-year-old American Dustin Lynch was charged with aggravated murder after being "obsessed" with Grand Theft Auto III so Lynch's note mentioned that "the attorneys had better tell the jury about the violent video game that trained this kid [and] showed him how to kill our daughter, JoLynn. If they don't, I will.".

That is erroneous. The comment is from the father of Lynch's victim. Here is a more detailed account of the incidence from the Jack Thompson page (a controversial lawyer about to be disbarred, who has been at the forefront of videogame censorship and attempts to them to violent incidences): February 2003, Thompson asked permission to file an amicus curiae (or "friend of the court") brief in the Ohio case of Dustin Lynch, 16, who was charged with aggravated murder in the slaying of JoLynn Mishne; Lynch was "obsessed" with Grand Theft Auto III.[45] When Judge John Lohn ruled that Lynch would be tried as an adult, Thompson passed a message from Mishne's father to the judge, asserting that "the attorneys had better tell the jury about the violent video game that trained this kid [and] showed him how to kill our daughter, JoLynn. If they don't, I will.”[46] In a motion sent to the prosecutor, the boy's court-appointed lawyer, and to reporters, Thompson asked to be recognized as the boy's lawyer in the case. However, Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman said Thompson would be faced with deeply conflicting interests if he were to represent Dustin Lynch because he also advised Mishne's parents.[47] Claiming that delays had weakened his case, Jack Thompson asked Medina County Common Pleas Judge Christopher Collier to disqualify himself from presiding over the case because the judge had not ruled on Thompson's request for two months.[48] Lynch himself eventually rejected Thompson's offer, withdrawing his insanity plea. Lynch's mother, Jerrilyn Thomas, who previously demanded that Judge Christopher Collier appoint Thompson to defend her son, said she changed her mind after visiting with her boy in jail, saying, "It has nothing to do with video games or Paxil, and my son's no murderer."[49]

This is the second "note" I found in a cursory glance, which seems to imply somebody is trying to plant suicide notes damning video games in every incident..

Case 3:On April 16, 2007, 23-year old Seung-Hui Cho killed 33 and injured 23 after being allegedly inspired by Counter-Strike.

Again, not only is this an allegation, but it was made by Jack Thompson--who never had contact with Cho--on television before the events of the incident were even clear, which makes it baseless. All articles on Cho clearly state he hadn't played the game in years, and his roommate is quoted several times saying Cho spent his time writing obsessively.

Case 4:In October 2004, a 41-year-old Chinese man named Qiu Chengwei stabbed 26-year-old Zhu Caoyuan to death over a dispute regarding the sale of a virtual weapon the two had jointly won in the game Legend of Mir 3.[19]

This passage must indicate that the weapon, while not recognized as property by police, had a real world value of $871, which for some people in China can amount to a half a year or a year's salary. Not including this information misses the point of the crime committed.

I don't have time to go through the rest right now, but I request that someone with editing privileges please verify my corrections and add them to the article...


I thank whoever made the changes to the Woolley secion. I am going to ad that there is no indication she ever played the game, as that is relevant to any comment she makes about how the game affects people.

Since editorial privileges have been loosened, I will also make the following changes: -the Lynch case: Lynch never said those words, they were said by his victims father, as I have indicated above on this discussion page. Corrections shall be made. -I am going to delete the Cho section altogether, but only after copying it here so it can be reinstated should others disagree. My reasons for doing this are that this is an unsubstantiated allegation. I am searching for proof that this allegation was raised by Jack Thompson as I asserted above (Case 3), to emphasize the fact that no reliable evidence was ever produced to support that thesis. However, I am also deleting the comment because it has no source to back up its allegation: no wikipedia page should have an unsourced allegation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.16.62 (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Here it is. Someone please find a source for this allegation before putting it back in.

Found it myself. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18220228/ This article clearly states who made the allegations: Jack Thompson and Dr Phil, both before the shooter was even identified. In addition, the article mentions that the reports that Cho had played countersrtike obsessively in high school were taken out of articles without explanation, and no source was ever given for those comments. Further more, the article states: "Meanwhile, authorities released a search warrant listing the items found in Cho's dorm room. Not a single video game, console or gaming gadget was on the list, though a computer was confiscated. And in an interview with Chris Matthews of "Hardball," Cho's university suite-mate said he had never seen Cho play video games." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.16.62 (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm back again, and have found another fault, pretty much identical to the Cho one:

"On February 14, 2008, 27-year old American Steven Phillip Kazmierczak killed 6 and injured 18 after playing Counter Strike."

Notice that no source is given for these claims. I did some research and discovered that Kazmierczak, like Cho, had indeed played Counter Strike--4-5 years ago. I also discovered that Jack Thompson, once again, was the source of the causal allegations on Fox News--the New York Post, also owned by News Corp, contented itself with misleading quotes from Kazmierczak's old roommates that selectively omitted the fact that everyone at the dorm was playing the game, and that they believed it was not related. http://kotaku.com/357301/nypost-college-killer-crazy-for-violent-vid-games

Much more relevant to both these cases is the fact that they had recently stopped taking psychotropic medications before their rampages. Given that these allegations are commonplace, and that there is a concerted effort to link video games to school shootings, I've come to the conclusion that erasing these comments from the list of incidences won't solve the issues.

Instead, I propose we regroup these incidents in one passage as they share a distinct pattern: unsubstantiated allegations of causality between the shootings and video games, in both cases brought up by Jack Thompson; misquoting of people close to the shooters; the sudden cessation of the use of psychotropic medication. Enumerating the incidents one by one gives the impression that in each case video games were positively identified as a cause, when that has never been the case.

I will be going over all the publicized incidents, their sources, and see which can be brought together in this way. --38.112.16.62 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone messed this page up.

They threw in a line of nonsense at the end of early contriversial games. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.220.211.225 (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Cleanup tag added

"Part of a series on censorship"

We have tons of stuff here completely unrelated to censorship, and stuff I wouldn't even consider "controversy".

3.4 Criticisms of the gameplay in and of itself 3.5 Uninteresting and uncreative games

Should be removed, or possibly moved to another article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PyroGamer (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Regarding the topic about video games not having stories, I think that there should at least be a reference to a third point of view, which shows that numerous video games have complex plots like: Metroid Prime, Halo, the recent Zelda games, and Chrono Trigger.

Outside of action and sports games, pretty much any game worth playing has a complex plot.--Shadowdrak 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

About canada (and french speaking quebec) video game ratings

I was the one who editted the canada part of the article because I wanted to point out the french speaking province of quebec does use the ESRB ratings system while they uses a different movies rating system than the rest of canada. this doesn't keep movies from having the canadian rating system on dvd and vhs boxes, which is why the quebec movie rating system is a sticker on most movie boxes.

the list

Can we split the list off into its own article please? This article is already very long without it.--Shadowdrak 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote:

Canis Canem Edit/Bully The player is able to urinate in the school bathrooms.

How is THAT controversial? I suggest deletion.

Quote:

Canis Canem Edit/Bully The player is able to urinate in the school bathrooms.

How is THAT controversial? I suggest deletion.

Almost complete lack of references in the lists at the end of the article

The lists of examples of controversial video games at the end of the article are almost entirely unreferenced. There are no citations provided to verify that any of these games generated significant controversy or what any controversy was specifically about. Note that I'm not saying the list is inaccurate - just that it's not living up to verifiability and reference standards.

I highly recommend going through the individual entries and either providing in-line citations to a source that can verify the individual controversy, and if no such citation exists for a particular game removing that game from the list as unverifiable information. That will not only clean up the references but also prune the lists to be more readable. Dugwiki 22:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs balancing

This is far too anti-game biased.

Huge amounts of criticism are stated (often repeated) and given lots of depth and counter points, when there are any stated, are left as small segments.


At least now if I ever need some propaganda done for me Ill know who to call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.111.194 (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkmenistan

I recall reading somewhere that video games are banned in turkmenistan. Could somebody prove that this is true?--Fantastic fred 19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

DSM-V Publication Date? 2011 or 2012

Depends on where you read. Some sources say late 2011. Others say 2012. Might as well leave the 2012 that the sourced article used. ZookieByTheSea 02:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

inaccurate and biased statements, this should be deleted and rewritten from scratch

This article is full on biased an inaccurate statements. I removed the phrase "Considering this game allows one to freely choose, it could also be noted that the game is similar to real life" that was talking about how Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' ability to pick up hookers and kill them for your money back was a choice and compared it to how people would act in real life. This is clearly not so, not even close. I will continue to rm-rf these statements as I come across them and as they are written. This article is not neutral at all and I suggest that I be completely rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M4573RM1ND (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The question, actually, is not whether one would do that, it's whether one could do that. People have different moral compasses, and someone might have sex witha hooker, then kill her and take any money she has on her at the time (although doing so would enrage anyone she works for). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm writing on behalf of the Tufts University Child and Family Webguide to ask that our website be considered for an external link on this Wikipedia page. Our website is maintained and developed by a staff of evaluators who search the web for articles and sites that contain valuable information for children and their parents regarding various medical/developmental topics. This link leads to our "Video and Computer Games" page, which offers information on how violence in contemporary video games influences child development:

http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/126.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.134.143 (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a bad idea the way it's written out. I'll check the link, but the suggestion itself looks like an advert (not the link). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 03:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, not going to work. Your link's simply an index to other works - one of them is minutes of a conference, another a list to another table of contents, and the third looks spammy. However, I did delve through the links and will link an article your first link led me to. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 03:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

English problems

This article has too many English problems to mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy?

This article needs to feature this in a significant manner. From Psychiatric Quarterly, Dec, 2007:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/66217176984x7477/

Results indicated that publication bias was a problem for studies of both aggressive behavior and visuospatial cognition. Once corrected for publication bias, studies of video game violence provided no support for the hypothesis that violent video game playing is associated with higher aggression. However playing violent video games remained related to higher visuospatial cognition (r x = 0.36).

--75.167.99.244 (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Twisted Metal?

Since when was twisted metal black a controversial game? I don't remember anybody complaining about the violence or making a big deal about it. There is no source saying it was a controversial game in this article nor in the game's article and unless someone can show me a source proving it was controversial I think we should remove it from the list.Father Time89 (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What about other controversies involving games.

There are a few other controversies other than violence, although this one is the most focused on. How about the "laziness" factor, or that game companies put out warnings about games being able to cause epileptic seizures in those that are photosensitive? Someone needs to point out the OTHER issues people have about gaming other than how violent they can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.69.97 (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what about some studies of brain degradation while playing? I've found an interesting note in Roger Ebert's review of "Silent Hill":

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060420/REVIEWS/60421001/1023

Speaking of synapses, another member of that panel discussion at Boulder was Dr. Leonard Shlain, chairman of laparoscopic surgery at California Pacific Medical Center, and an author whose book Art & Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time and Light makes you think that if anyone could understand "Silent Hill," he could. Dr. Shlain made the most interesting comment on the panel. He said they took some four and five year-olds and gave them video games and asked them to figure out how to play them without instructions. Then they watched their brain activity with real-time monitors. "At first, when they were figuring out the games," he said, "the whole brain lit up. But by the time they knew how to play the games, the brain went dark, except for one little point."

85.249.160.24 (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry

get back to the guy above when i say this but ...spanking? is it really needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.249.164 (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Brazil cinema shootings

This happened in São Paulo, November 3 of 1999 at the Morumbi Shopping. The movie going on was Fight Club. I had created an article about this, but it seems to have been deleted... The shooter is called Mateus da Costa Meira. It resulted in 3 dead and 4 wounded.-- NIC1138 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sexism

The article should definitely mention another issue about video games, sexism. I'll throw some topics oth there with counterpoints, hopefully we can all have a discussion before adding a new section.

  • Women are often scantily clad.
    • Men are occasionally scantily clad as well.
    • Many women in the real world dress in similar ways.
  • Women are often stereotyped: damsel in distress, promiscuous, etc.
    • Men are stereotyped as well: muscle-bound, sociopathic, etc.
  • Several games demean women such as: The Guy Game, Rumble Roses, hentai games, etc.

156.34.222.106 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Video_game_controversies/Archive_1&oldid=1154036950"