A message from Lucas Molyneux to Valve - General

The only two relevant links in the references are dead. And seeing as whoever wrote that PDF makes absolutely no effort to be objective, it's probably not trustworthy.

[QUOTE=Tabarnaco;25007265] This alone is not good evidence, as it merely claims that other studies revealed that information. It's too vague, there are no statistics, nothing. And, of course, there are ways to calculate such information to make it work in one's favour.[/QUOTE] Do you even know what a metastudy is?

You do realize almost all of those studies and experiments were held 10 years ago, right? Hell, some of them even 15-18 years ago.

Just saying "those people said that this is true, so it is" does not constitute solid evidence, unless relevant, concrete citations and preferably statistics or numbers are provided. [editline]05:34PM[/editline] If you can find me some [i]concrete and concise[/i] evidence then I will be able to look at it and research it further to determine whether or not it is valid. [editline]05:35PM[/editline] And yeah, the research is from the mid-80s up until 2000 or so, apparently.

[QUOTE=Tabarnaco;25007392]The only two relevant links in the references are dead. And seeing as whoever wrote that PDF makes absolutely no effort to be objective, it's probably not trustworthy.[/QUOTE] Then look at one of the many other sources.

I can't be bothered to find a ten-year-old book. If you can't find anything else to back you up from the Internet, then you're not convincing at all.

[QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;25007438]You do realize almost all of those studies and experiments were held 10 years ago, right? Hell, some of them even 15-18 years ago.[/QUOTE] Uh, yea. Most studies have been. You have any idea how long it takes to conduct a real scientific study? A long fucking time. [editline]09:38PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Tabarnaco;25007569]I can't be bothered to find a ten-year-old book.[/QUOTE] Then your argument is invalid. I gave you evidence and you choose to ignore it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;25006741]I provided my argument. Young children shouldn't be exposed to excessive violence. Being exposed to violence affects a young child negatively. [editline]09:08PM[/editline] Again, I probably wouldn't let my own child play either of those games.[/QUOTE] Then you should put your kid into a box because the internet and the people he's surrounded by in school will have more effect on your kid than any video game whether it's positive or negative. Unless it's FP, we're all very nice people that would never exploit anyone in a time of weakness. Edit: Also: [img]http://www.mcvuk.com/static/images/news/30446/184_4570_CNN.jpg?i=1237379690[/img]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;25007574]Then your argument is invalid. I gave you evidence and you choose to ignore it.[/QUOTE] No, you didn't. I highly doubt you read those books, either, so you don't know what they say either. You make absolutely no sense. You're not giving me evidence, just telling me to find it myself, which isn't right, since you're the one making claims. Additionally, the study you linked earlier cited that even brief exposure to violent scenes on television or in movies make people more aggressive, so you might want to ban your kids from using a TV or going to the movie theatre as well.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;25007574]Uh, yea. Most studies have been. You have any idea how long it takes to conduct a real scientific study? A long fucking time.[/QUOTE] How long it does actually take?

They interviewed high school students for a duration of two years (or at least the study takes the data from 98 and 99). Hardly took ten years.

that kid looks like he's about 8 he wasn't even born in time for half life

I'm sure there are tons of people who've played Half-Life 2 and are waiting for Half-Life 3, but have never played the first game. I didn't play Half-Life 1 until I think one year ago, I might as well have been born ten years later. Just because he wasn't born at that time doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to like Half-Life.

[QUOTE=Tabarnaco;25007657]No, you didn't. I highly doubt you read those books, either, so you don't know what they say either. You make absolutely no sense. You're not giving me evidence, just telling me to find it myself, which isn't right, since you're the one making claims.[/quote] One source from the reference: [url]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X01-4NVHFGP-6&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1983&_alid=1471805519&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_cdi=7201&_sort=r&_st=13&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dcec1b90601009ef8e8ede2cc2e587c2&searchtype=a[/url] Two sources: [url]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WY5-46T4DM8-1K&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1994&_alid=1471808251&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_cdi=7177&_sort=r&_st=13&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bb31df03df59f3f9837ede122b140af6&searchtype=a[/url] These are from peer reviewed journals by the way. [quote]Additionally, the study you linked earlier cited that even brief exposure to violent scenes on television or in movies make people more aggressive, so you might want to ban your kids from using a TV or going to the movie theatre as well.[/QUOTE] TV and Film are not the topic. However, yes, I would limit my own child's exposure to violent media in all forms as much as possible until they were an age I could teach and put it in context. [editline]09:53PM[/editline] [QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;25007735]How long it does actually take?[/QUOTE] Depends on the study. Some are actually short, but others can take 10 or more years to complete.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;25007982]TV and Film are not the topic.[/quote] Yet the PDF file you linked earlier is based almost entirely on studies about television rather than video games, due to the lack of literature available on the subject. Heh. [QUOTE=yawmwen;25007982]Depends on the study. Some are actually short, but others can take 10 or more years to complete.[/QUOTE] And as I mentioned, the studies that were dated in the file (that I noticed anyway) were all obviously completed in under a year.

Nevermind that's a subscription site, I'll try and find a pdf.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;25007343]I provided you with all the evidence you needed. It's your turn to refute it. By the way, look at the bottom of the .pdf[/QUOTE] A .19 positive correlation means nothing without an adequate reference; we don't know the wording of any of the studies they drew results from. Aside from that, that number does nothing to distinguish whether it is correlation or causation. At that sample base, and not being given a control that is able to be manipulated, we do not know whether children with aggressive behaviors are drawn to violent video games or the video games make the child violent.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;25007982]Depends on the study. Some are actually short, but others can take 10 or more years to complete.[/QUOTE] Wait, there is an inconsistency here. If the [b]study[/b] was released during those times, then the studies would be useless now. Because we are talking about 10-15 years AFTER these studies were released.

[QUOTE=Tabarnaco;25008107]Yet the PDF file you linked earlier is based almost entirely on studies about television rather than video games, due to the lack of literature available on the subject. Heh. [/QUOTE] Is there a logical reason why being exposed to violent television would be different than a violent video game?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;25008173]Is there a logical reason why being exposed to violent television would be different than a violent video game?[/QUOTE] Interactivity.

[quote](a) imagining oneself performing (or not performing) a certain behavior produces corresponding changes in intentions toward that behavior[/quote] Interesting, but how exactly? To what degree? And do people actually imagine themselves as being the main character? I don't. Which brings me to this: [quote](c) such changes in personal intentions do not occur when the main character of the script is not oneself.[/quote] So, it depends on how the player perceives him or herself when he or she plays video games. Still not very precise, but at least it's better than citing other people without any proof. The amount of people isn't very impressive either, but I'll ignore that. [quote]replicated the basic effect and demonstrated that the intention changes persisted for at least 3 days.[/quote] It's not even permanent, so I don't see what people should be worried about. [editline]06:03PM[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;25008173]Is there a logical reason why being exposed to violent television would be different than a violent video game?[/QUOTE] Television is not interactive and doesn't require you to use your brain very much. Video games do, since you have to actually analyze what happens on the screen and make decisions based on the situation. When you passively watch TV or a movie, you are more likely to be influenced by what is shown.

The amount of 'studies' that claim the effects of violent games make kids aggressive are just as prevalent as the amount that claim the opposite. For: [url]http://www.financialexpress.com/news/story/136114/[/url] Against: [url]http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2007-03-02-killer-games_N.htm[/url] It's a pointless argument. It depends on the child and her upbringing.

[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;25008427]The amount of 'studies' that claim the effects of violent games make kids aggressive are just as prevalent as the amount that claim the opposite. For: [url]http://www.financialexpress.com/news/story/136114/[/url] Against: [url]http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2007-03-02-killer-games_N.htm[/url] It's a pointless argument. It depends on the child and her upbringing.[/QUOTE] And I'm sure both side have terrible arguments, look at that. [quote]The report was a result of 17 studies conducted over 20 years by Kevin Kieffer and Jessica Nicoll of Saint Leo University, Florida.[/quote] The article was written in 2005, so the first study would have started in 1985, when there were hardly any video games, let alone violent ones, LET ALONE graphic ones. [quote]Teachers of 600 children aged between 13 and 15, said children who spent more time playing such video games were more hostile than others. They are also more likely to argue with authorities and peers.[/quote] Because teachers are very reliable at a time when many people are afraid of video games making kids violent. Asking people doesn't cut it. [quote]Playing games with violent moves such as karate kicks, for example, leads children to use these moves in real life.[/quote] Suddenly, karate is dangerous. [quote]Children who play violent games are less likely to be helpful. But whether these attributes translate a behaviour is still unclear. Said Keiffer: “Imagine a child playing these very violent games from the age of 10 until adulthood. It’s hard to speculate that he would not have some adverse effects as a result of this.”[/quote] Ridiculous. Note how he or she said "imagine" without actually providing any information. He or she is just trying to manipulate people, because those who agree with him or her will be less likely to notice how poor this argument is. [quote]“No violence can have a healthy effect on children. It makes children less inhibited and desensitised to violence. It also leads to a distortion of reality wherein they tend to justify violence.”[/quote] That's a fair premise, the only one in the article. it quotes a psychologist who gave a very reasonable argument, although it doesn't mean video games will make children kill people or be more aggressive. Similarly, the other article doesn't say much at all, just that the other side doesn't look at all the factors, which is reasonable but doesn't mean that video games are inoffensive. I'd say it's the better one, but neither really proves anything. [quote]Her research, which involved analyzing newspaper coverage and FBI statistics detailing trends on youth crime, found that in the 10 years after the release of Doom— and many other brutal-sounding titles — juvenile homicide arrest rates in the United States fell 77%.[/quote] This is interesting, but without the actual numbers of homicide arrests it's hard to tell if it was a big problem initially. I suspect it's spun. But yeah, I'm done with this, I completely derailed the thread, sorry.

[QUOTE=Tabarnaco;25007569]I can't be bothered to find a ten-year-old book. If you can't find anything else to back you up from the Internet, then you're not convincing at all.[/QUOTE] Those citations aren't from books, they're from papers published in peer-reviewed (meaning the papers were checked for sound methodology and accurate analysis by respected scientists) scientific journals. I'm assuming you're in high school, so you probably don't have access to any academic databases like EBSCO, but I looked a few of them up for you: [quote]Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life. Authors: Anderson, Craig A.1 [email]caa@iastate.edu[/email] Dill, Karen E.2 [email]dillk@lrc.edu[/email] Source: Journal of Personality & Social Psychology; Apr2000, Vol. 78 Issue 4, p772-790, 19p, 3 Diagrams, 2 Charts, 4 Graphs Abstract: Two studies examined violent video game effects on aggression-related variables. Study 1 found that real-life violent video game play was positively related to aggressive behavior and delinquency. The relation was stronger for individuals who are characteristically aggressive and for men. Academic achievement was negatively related to overall amount of time spent playing video games. In Study 2, laboratory exposure to a graphically violent video game increased aggressive thoughts and behavior. In both studies, men had a more hostile view of the world than did women. The results from both studies are consistent with the General Affective Aggression Model, which predicts that exposure to violent video games will increase aggressive behavior in both the short term (e.g., laboratory aggression) and the long term (e.g., delinquency). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR][/quote] [quote]I Wish I Were a Warrior: The Role of Wishful Identification in the Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression in Adolescent Boys. Authors: Konijn, Elly A.1 [email]ea.konijn@fsw.vu.nl[/email] Bijvank, Marije Nije1 Bushman, Brad J.2,3 Source: Developmental Psychology; Jul2007, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p1038-1044, 7p, 1 Diagram, 2 Charts, 1 Graph Abstract: This study tested the hypothesis that violent video games are especially likely to increase aggression when players identify with violent game characters. Dutch adolescent boys with low education ability (N = 112) were randomly assigned to play a realistic or fantasy violent or nonviolent video game. Next, they competed with an ostensible partner on a reaction time task in which the winner could blast the loser with loud noise through headphones (the aggression measure). Participants were told that high noise levels could cause permanent hearing damage. Habitual video game exposure, trait aggressiveness, and sensation seeking were controlled for. As expected, the most aggressive participants were those who played a violent game and wished they were like a violent character in the game. These participants used noise levels loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage to their partners, even though their partners had not provoked them. These results show that identifying with violent video game characters makes players more aggressive. Players were especially likely to identify with violent characters in realistic games and with games they felt immersed in. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR][/quote] Now, it's worth noting that there may not be a consensus on this issue, e.g.: [quote] The Good, The Bad and the Ugly: A Meta-analytic Review of Positive and Negative Effects of Violent Video Games. Images Chart Chart Authors: Ferguson, Christopher1 [email]CJFerguson1111@Aol.com[/email] Source: Psychiatric Quarterly; Dec2007, Vol. 78 Issue 4, p309-316, 8p, 2 Charts Abstract: Objective Video game violence has become a highly politicized issue for scientists and the general public. There is continuing concern that playing violent video games may increase the risk of aggression in players. Less often discussed is the possibility that playing violent video games may promote certain positive developments, particularly related to visuospatial cognition. The objective of the current article was to conduct a meta-analytic review of studies that examine the impact of violent video games on both aggressive behavior and visuospatial cognition in order to understand the full impact of such games. Methods A detailed literature search was used to identify peer-reviewed articles addressing violent video game effects. Effect sizes r (a common measure of effect size based on the correlational coefficient) were calculated for all included studies. Effect sizes were adjusted for observed publication bias. Results 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 <sub>x</sub> = 0.36). Conclusions Results from the current analysis did not support the conclusion that violent video game playing leads to aggressive behavior. However, violent video game playing was associated with higher visuospatial cognition. It may be advisable to reframe the violent video game debate in reference to potential costs and benefits of this medium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR][/quote] ...but your argument of "I can't be bothered to find the sources cited by this [i]peer-reviewed scientific paper[/i] so therefore it must be wrong!" is phenomenally ignorant.

I'm not in high school anymore, but no, where I'm from I don't have access to that stuff. And I never said the sources but wrong, just that substantial proof should be provided in a way that's not incredibly inconvenient for me to access. Way to twist my words. Besides, the paper is obviously biased, so it can be manipulative (by omitting important factors, for example) without being wrong. [quote]when players identify with violent game characters[/quote] [quote]with low education ability[/quote] Worth noting, because the original argument was that video games will make any kid violent. [quote]These participants used noise levels loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage to their partners, even though their partners had not provoked them.[/quote] Wow, what a bunch of dicks.

[QUOTE=Tabarnaco;25009208]I'm not in high school anymore, but no, where I'm from I don't have access to that stuff. And I never said the sources but wrong, just that substantial proof should be provided in a way that's not incredibly inconvenient for me to access. Way to twist my words.[/QUOTE] The evidence IS substantial, and whether or not you can access it it's still provided by extremely credible sources. To discount peer-reviewed scientific research simply because you lack the credentials to check up on their methodology (which has already been vetted by other neutral scientists in the field and which neither of us would fully understand anyway) is really silly. What school do you go to? There's a good chance they do have a database of some kind. [QUOTE=Tabarnaco;25009208]Besides, the paper is obviously biased, so it can be manipulative (by omitting important factors, for example) without being wrong.[/QUOTE] Why do you think it's biased? You have go give a good reason--just because it contradicts your views doesn't make it biased. If it was funded by the "Council Against Violence in Media" or something like that then yeah, there would be good reason to think it's biased.

[QUOTE=TH89;25009349]What school do you go to? There's a good chance they do have a database of some kind.[/quote] Never heard of such a thing, and I'm in CEGEP, which is kind of like a bridge between high school and university, except I'm in a technical program, which I heard is kind of like community college. [QUOTE=TH89;25009349]Why do you think it's biased? You have go give a good reason--just because it contradicts your views doesn't make it biased. If it was funded by the "Council Against Violence in Media" or something like that then yeah, there would be good reason to think it's biased.[/QUOTE] There's no nuance in the document. It's based around the assumption that video games make children, adolescents and young adults violent, when it's not always the case according to the studies' excerpts you showed. As reliable as it may be, it's not objective. I mean, starting the article by mentioning school shootings, which are very extreme cases, pretty much gives it away.

[QUOTE=Tabarnaco;25009534]There's no nuance in the document. It's based around the assumption that video games make children, adolescents and young adults violent, when it's not always the case according to the studies' excerpts you showed. As reliable as it may be, it's not objective. I mean, starting the article by mentioning school shootings, which are very extreme cases, pretty much gives it away.[/QUOTE] It's not based on that assumption, that's the conclusion it reaches. The purpose of a meta-analytic document is to examine the research that has been published, and draw conclusions about what the consensus is, taking into account things like individual bias and accuracy of methodology.

Then it disregards other studies that go against that "consensus" to fake one. Unless every study that proves the contrary of what this claims was published years later, in which case it's obsolete and shouldn't be considered a solid argument. Also, since the PDF treats about violence on television and in movies, if video games cause violence in kids, why don't we hear about more crimes related to film or television?

[QUOTE=Tabarnaco;25009793]Then it disregards other studies that go against that "consensus" to fake one. Unless every study that proves the contrary of what this claims was published years later, in which case it's obsolete and shouldn't be considered a solid argument.[/QUOTE] Not all studies are equally valid. Like I just said, methodology can be flawed, and bias can play a role. It is the job of a meta-analytical paper to sort through those aspects and determine which studies can be believed and which can't.