h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'll admit it, I've not played the new Grand Theft Auto game yet (or indeed any GTA game since GTA2 in 1999), but the fact that it's flying off the shelves has raised a few questions for me.

Is a game where you play as a gangster any more damaging to society than films like The Godfather?

Given that more and more time and effort is given to story, characterisation and acting, will computer games ever be seen as an "art form" in the same way as film and TV?

How long will it be before the Daily Mail blames this (or any other computer game) for a murder/theft/immigration?

Oh, and here's an obligatory link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7371668.stm

>Is a game where you play as a gangster any more damaging to society than films like The Godfather?

To answer that question we'd have to know whether actively controlling an on-screen character involved in violence has a different effect to passively viewing an on-screen character doing the same (or worse in the case of films: very few games (including the GTA series) are especially realistic). I don't think any such studies exist. Certainly there have been some headcases who played GTA games and then got involved in "similar" violence for real but the obvious question is whether these people were likely to commit such crimes anyway and needed something to "give them an idea" (or pass the blame onto). The only serious study into TV-related violence drew the conclusion that there was a link between screen and real-life violence (linked to levels of aggression I think) but no real evidence that if someone viewed something on screen they were likely to copy it in the real world.

It's also worth remembering that, like the first two GTA games, the later GTA games are set in an unrealistic, comical world where dead people are brought back to life by medics and driving your car off the roof of a ten story building doesn't result in death. They're not emulating the real world, largely because if they did they wouldn't be any fun.

>Given that more and more time and effort is given to story, characterisation and acting, will computer games ever be seen as an "art form" in the same way as film and TV?

I wish games would drop the attempts to match films and TV in their storylines; they're games and some of us don't care and it leads to extended, tedious cutscenes between the action. If I want a great story I'll watch a film or read a book, I play games for the gameplay (which the GTA games deliver on). The only games where the storyline was especially important were the old adventure games ("Monkey Island", "Sam and Max" et al) and they're largely dead as a genre.

>How long will it be before the Daily Mail blames this (or any other computer game) for a murder/theft/immigration?

They'll do what the reactionary press has always done: attack it as a menace until it's something all their readers do in which case they flip over to libertarian tutting at "the nanny state".

I disagree. I mean I like different games for a whole lot of reasons: action, problem solving, contests of cunning with other players, a sense of exploration...but one of the big draws for me is a good story. Now I don't think a good story in a game is the same as one in a film or a novel. You get most details in very different places - like a novel can have a complicated plot, whereas a game can't, but can flesh out the world through art, sound effects, etc. in a way that would be very boring if it were a list of adjectives on a page. And of course games sort of generate their own stories in your mind as you play.

But anyway, what I'm saying is that a good story really works for me as a reward for finishing a bit of gameplay, and has often actually kept me going through otherwise boring games, or games that were very difficult.

Right, moving on to the meat of the topic. Someone posted in a Hitman thread a while back to a New Scientist article claiming that metastudies had shown that violence and games are linked - the figure given was twice the coorelation of passive smoking and cancer*. I've also seen a lot of other articles arguing against this on fairly reasonable grounds (i.e. that most of the studies on computer games and violence are fairly poorly thought through), but mostly from tech sites which are likely to be anti-anti-gaming.

*Now I'm not too sure about this, but I gather from other sources that the link between passive smoking and cancer is very tenuous? Rather its the other respiratory diseases that are the problem IIRC.

Coming to Grand Theft Auto, my general rule of thumb is: if someone is old enough to understand that gangsters don't join the music industry (except maybe as executives?), then they're probably ready for the glorious pastiche that is GTA.

>Someone posted in a Hitman thread a while back to a New Scientist article claiming that metastudies had shown that violence and games are linked - the figure given was twice the coorelation of passive smoking and cancer*. <

'twas me. It was from a NS editorial citing metastudies covering all aspects of media violence, but it is accepted that interactive media (games) have a stronger effect than TV. I'm ambivalent about the games really, don't play them, but it irks me when people selectively ignore or deny evidence, and that happens a lot with media violence.

Here's the editorial:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19426003.600-editorial-in-denial-about-onscreen-violence.html

Here's the last bit as you need a login:
"Here's one way to weigh up the evidence. Meta-analysis shows that the statistical correlation between exposure to media violence and aggression is not quite as strong as that linking smoking to an increased risk of lung cancer. It is, however, double the strength of the correlation between passive smoking and lung cancer, twice as strong as the link between condom use and reduction in risk of catching HIV, about three times the strength of the idea that calcium increases bone strength, and more than three times as strong as the correlation between time spent doing homework and academic achievement.

The issue is no longer whether there is an effect, but what it means to each one of us, and how much we care. Like cigarette smoke, screen violence will not affect us all. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of violent behaviour. The effects are subtle and it will remain impossible to pin any specific act - such as the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech University - to a single media experience.

The film and gaming industries are not about to go away, and indeed, in a free society, why should they? But we can all make choices as individuals and parents. Each time you bawl out a stranger over the phone, or lose it with another driver from the safety of your car, consider that these too are aggressive acts which studies have shown are more likely after repeated exposure to on-screen violence; the impact is not limited to assault and murder. It seems inappropriate to keep calling this harmless entertainment."

I think people given to violence, and lets face it the sometimes grubby and horrible lives that some people grw up experiencing do make them more prone to losing their tmeper more easily, will do it in a style they are exposed to through by their cultural millue.

I mean I dont see many of the middle class geeky kids I went to secondary school with who played dungeons and dragons in the 80's running up and down the streets waving swords about. I do see other kids I went to school with who like me listened to NWA etc...and are now drug dealers of varying peetiness trying to shoot each other and beating up people who dont pay them on time. I think things would have been much dierent had you reversed the influences but kept the life expectations and family situations the same.

I mean I dont see many of the middle class geeky kids I went to secondary school with who played dungeons and dragons in the 80's running up and down the streets waving swords about. I do see other kids I went to school with who like me listened to NWA etc...and are now drug dealers of varying peetiness trying to shoot each other and beating up people who dont pay them on time. I think things would have been much dierent had you reversed the influences but kept the life expectations and family situations the same.

I agree; the main causes of violence are not media-related and so we shouldn't allow various idiots to use them as a handy scapegoat. However, at the same time we shouldn't ignore the scientific findings or attempt to dismiss them with wishful thinking (which a hell of a lot of people are going to do in order to stop the Daily Mail element from scoring points).

It still doesn't really explain what these correlations actually mean though.

I mean, let's face it, fighting is fun. People are going to partake in violence if they enjoy it, so why not set up a safe environment for it? And what's safer than virtual?

Leading on from that, one thing I notice is that no-one ever seems to talk about whether martial arts or boxing, wrestling or whatever encourages violence, they're just accepted. I guess MMA and cage fighting has come in for a bit of stick lately, but its still much less of a public issue than computer games.

The same could be said about contact sports. I've seen rugby, football and hockey matches all used as an excuse for a bit of a punch-up when people are feeling tense.

I think that anyone that commits crimes, beats up a stranger, whatever, will find a way to attempt to excuse their actions by blaming some influence or other.

I just think focusing on these claimed influences distracts from the real reasons for violent behaviour, whatever they may be.

Well yes and no.

There are clearly people who use violence as a way of coming by financial gain.

Sexually motivated violence tends to go up with the resistence shown by the victim and as with mugging or armed robbery is not the victims fault or responsibiliy.

This is different to people who are prone to scrapping for no particular reasonrom what Ive seen.




"I just think focusing on these claimed influences distracts from the real reasons for violent behaviour, whatever they may be.

People who feel the need to share their positive mood can become crashing bores, but traumatised people feel that same need and unwittingly develope strategies to engender tension/anger/frustration in others and despite the obvious negative effects of this it does not negate the fact that when everyone in the room is as angry as them these damged people then feel normal. Feeeling normal isa thing that matters enormously when you feel your life is so far outside the norm.




I've told the story beore of the fuel blockades about 10 years ago when an old riend of mine ended up fighting in a cue at a petrol station.

No one in this case attempted to say that something in petrol makes people prone to violence. It was reported that it was the competition for this scarce resource. Whne Dave, that's his name, has fights in pubs he blames the alcohol, but when he used to have to be restrained from assaulting ootball referees on Sunday mornings what was to blame then?

Maybe all those things the booze, the scarce resource or the computer games he played triggered Dave's violence outbursts. Maybe it was something else but Dave *liked* fighting more than most people I know.


Now I like ighting, that's proper like not the like we use to say "Women *like* bastards".

Boxing, the odd punch up in rugby (well make it the almost weekly punch in rugby, ater 20m years of playing most places I go to play I pretty much know who Im going to be exchanging punches with)

Thing is I dont like venomous violence. The physical/psychological release is wonderous, but I hate the thought of people (especially me) being let with any permanent damage or losing out in life e.g. having their wages nicked of them.

That's all inspite of being exposed to violent films and music.

Now Dave like I went to kick boxing classes and actaully went to more than I did, but didnt learn any of the much vaunted self discipline that is claimed to be a biproduct of boxing and such like. We only need to look at the well publicised antics of Mike Tyson to see the exception to that rule.

I think it is far more sensible to say that some people will be mindlessly violent, cautiously violent or totally averse to violence regardless of the influences around them. That's not to say that people shouldnt think about such things but I think a better starting place to improve society would be to reduce or even replace the reading in schools of some very popular books that advocate sexism, racism and all manner of smitting of people.


one love

>It still doesn't really explain what these correlations actually mean though.

>I mean, let's face it, fighting is fun. People are going to partake in violence if they enjoy it, so why not set up a safe environment for it? And what's safer than virtual?

Or, indeed, watching it on television. The problem is that the research seems to indicate a link between TV violence and actual violence. I seem to recall it had something to do with aggression levels although I'm unable to confirm since the New Scientist article isn't available to non-subscribers.

Don't take this the wrong way but I've noticed that you seem to be uncomfortable with these findings which I predicted people would be. It's never a good idea to dismiss this sort of thing unless you've got some very solid evidence behind you.

>Leading on from that, one thing I notice is that no-one ever seems to talk about whether martial arts or boxing, wrestling or whatever encourages violence, they're just accepted. I guess MMA and cage fighting has come in for a bit of stick lately, but its still much less of a public issue than computer games.

I think people have said they have; watching violence tends to get people "hyped up" and desesitises them to it. The thing is watching martial arts or boxing isn't as widespread as TV-viewing or videogame-playing.

>The same could be said about contact sports. I've seen rugby, football and hockey matches all used as an excuse for a bit of a punch-up when people are feeling tense.

Bad example. That's violence linked to tribalism "us against them". Football hooligans don't fight because watching men kick a ball makes them aggressive, they fight because they like fighting and the sport gives them a "tribe" to belong to. In ancient Constantinople the sports hooligans used to follow hippodrome racing; sport has a long tradition of this sort of thing. It's nothing to do with the sports themselves.

I would love to argue against there being a correlation, but I cant.

What I can argue is that if we each learn self control and self awareness and teach it to others consistently, one takes responsibility for one's own actions and those who are incapable of such soon become apparent and can be dealt with appropriately (medical care, incarceration, whatever is necessary).

Of course that's pie in the sky and easy for me to say, I'm quite the pacifist, I dont partake in violence (I'm a wimp and get hurt too easily!) and dont enjoy watching people getting hurt unless they are partaking in a non-violent game during which injuries are an accepted risk, in which case it's incidental rather than the whole point of the activity. (I can just about handle rugby though I wince when they stand on each other )

I have to say that I too adopt certain language, attitudes (albeit superficial) and postures that I may see on TV/film/games. Just because I can tell the difference and never mean it literally if I say things like 'I wanted to kick him in the teeth' doesn't mean other people have the same opinions of what is and is not acceptable behaviour.

Not an answer, just an observation.

I agree. Everyone knows that what we watch/read/listen to affects how we act in various ways, it just suits people to streneously deny it in certain instances for political reasons. So you'll get some music hack mouthing off about how listening to band X for the first time made him leave home and form his own band and then in the next breath telling you that there can't possibly be a link between screen and real-life violence. We all know there's always been a link. I think the strenous-denial stuff is to do with the "unravelling" worry: ie that if someone admits a link then they think they've admitted that the Mary Whitehouse tendency were correct and everything should be banned. This is itself nonsense because the link is subtle and there are more pressing reasons for violence in society and no evidence (scientific or otherwise) that noviolent people can be made violent by media: it's more a knock-on effect on all the other pressures society is put under.

It's like the climate change deniers (who, thankfully, have largely gone away) who seemed to think that admitted climate change was real and admitting that their car had something to do with it would result in them having to give up driving and end up living in a tree. It's not about joining the "other side" or a whole worldview unravelling, it's about being grown-up enough to acknowledge the link and intelligent enough to put it into context.

Oh my it is a glorious game. ay Carumba!!!

>>"Don't take this the wrong way but I've noticed that you seem to be uncomfortable with these findings which I predicted people would be."<<

I point you to your own first post .

Anyway, I am well aware that I'm likely to be biased against people attacking my hobby.

And I don't think desensitising is the issue any more. The serious studies have been focusing on patterned behaviour influencing thought. i.e. people say "I just feel this way, there's nothing I can do about it," but in fact they feel that way because they're used to acting that way.

(Which is also a powerful tool: if you want to change, make it easy for yourself act the way you want to be over and over.)

I'm not exactly sure where my point is going to go. I have to think this through a bit more, but I feel that the world is too safe, that play fighting takes too much stick considering there're no real fights to be had. Modern life is stifling for a man and there needs to be some release.

i wonder why its only violence in games and othering things in film and TV.

After the film sea biscuit was releaced he numbers of children who became intersted in horse riding doubled (according to statiscics printed in a local newspaper) so what after a games like say Cooking Mamma do statiscs not get maide about people whating to be chefs? untill they start loking about the coralation between all aspects of games and not just the negative ones there will not be a way to conferm if there is an affect of not.

People will always look for scapegoat, the way sociaty is today makes us baleve that there is always somone wls to blame acadents dont just happen, you only did that becsue of your chiuld hood or you where inflacend by that latest evil thing its pathetic people will never be able to eradicate violent crime untill we admit that it is in our nature as humans to be predesposed to violence yes some people may get ideas from games and tv but the perpensaty for vioence was always there and if they did not have the self controle to see a violent image and not try to copy it then they would have done somthing any way

Has anyone else played it yet?

I'm sorry, but it's ONLY A BLOODY COMPUTER GAME!

But it sure is one helluva computer game!!!

that it is