In the greedy mind
set that we Americans tend to run off of, there is good news for
unscrupulous greedy bastards; Take Two will be offering
an exchange or refund (of $35) for anyone who bought GTA:SA
before the Hot Coffee scandal broke. The requirements for this
settlement include both having proof of buying the game prior to
7/20/2005 and having found that they would not have purchased the
game if the Hot Coffee bullshit was known of prior to purchase.
I can see a lot of
people jumping on this refund. The exchange for an M rated disc
(which is the alternative to getting $35 in a refund) is going to be
ignored. However, enough greedy bastards are out there that will
take advantage of the refund by swearing that the game harmed their
fragile little minds.
As for me, I will
not take part. I bought GTA:SA on it's launch day and I loved the
game. Hot Coffee required steps that most normal gamers would not be
able to do to unlock, and it wasn't all that offensive (when
compared with the game of the game's content). I got a good level of
entertainment from Rockstar's time and efforts, and I would not feel
right looking for the easy $35. It's wrong, immoral, and just dirty
to jump on this offer...which means too many people will do it.
On to the current
day (instead of news that should have died over two years ago),
tonight the Seahawks will play San Francisco. It is always
interesting how (at least for the last season and a half) that all
Monday night home games for the Seahawks include the weirdest
weather possible. It's almost like some form of conspiracy to show
the world that Seattle lives up to it's reputation of bad weather.
include a lot of rain (enough to make the San Diego/Colts game look
dry) and some major wind. In fact, it's a night that is including a
lot of news (dating back to last night) from the local news
broadcasts that Seattleites need to track down their candles and
prepare for some lack of power.
I hope this is
enough of an unusual situation to give the Seahawks a nice advantage
against the 49ers. Afterall, Seattle in a wind storm is a nice
advantage for a home team. I especially want Seattle to win since it
has been looking too much like Seattle is where crappy teams (S.F.
is 2-6) go to turn around their season (look at how many wins the
Saints have received since their Seattle game...which gave them win
number one for the year).
think the main deciding factor in this game will be the running
game. Since the winds may be sustained at up to 30 or more MPH, it
will be a bad situation for any passing and kicking game. So, when
it comes down to it, the Seahawks will be in a lot of trouble.
Alexander cannot run to save his life, and Morris is still not
there. There only solution to this, in my eyes, is for Wallace (who
runs like a mo'fo') to be put in as a rusher. Will this happen? No.
He is the second QB.
scenario play out? Now that is the real question. With Frye, an
actual NFL starter (in the past) being Wallace's backup, it leaves
room for Wallace to get into the game a bit more. In particular, it
leaves room for Wallace to run the ball while Frye waits on the side
lines...in case the worst happens. So, to answer that question; yes,
it is possible.
Sadly, today is
when Mario Galaxy comes out (at least according to
a very annoying message sent to my phone from Gamestop). It's
sad since I am actually excited about this game. It's making me feel
a bit nostalgic, like when I was a kid waiting for SMB3 or Super
Mario World. It's been a long time since Nintendo has had me hyped
for a new game. Yet, one one hand it's a Seahawk's game
tonight...and on the other hand, this supposed storm that's coming
(and it's not supposed to hit full force around me for another few
hours) is already shaping up to look like it may limit my power in
some major ways.
Anyway, even if
SMG comes along today and is in my hands, I may only get an hour or
so of playing. The Seahawks game cannot be missed (and yes...I know
it has a lot of potential to be a train wreck...I'm just a dedicated
and delusional fan) and then Heroes. Too much to do for one single
Last night was a
good night overall. Despite the threat of power outages as the local
news told all viewers to prepare for the Apocalypse, the world (or
at least Seattle's end of it) did not come to it's untimely demise.
This also, most
importantly, meant I was left with power to enjoy two things that
matter a lot to me; new Mario games and a night of football.
As for the
football side of things, it was nice seeing Seattle squash the 49ers
(24-0!) for a second time this season. However, I was hoping for
more of the bad weather during the game since last year we saw some
of the best Monday Night Football games in Seattle. Why were they so
good last year? Because the weather was always completely unnatural
for the Seattle climate. We had rain of biblical proportions, way
out of season snow, and further rounds of rain with wind. On the
other hand, last night had a bit of a drizzle and a little bit of
wind (nowhere near the 50+ MPH gusts promised by the local weather
However, the game
was still great to watch. Not just because the Seahawks shut down
San Francisco (third shutout out of the last four MNF broadcasts for
the 'Hawks). It went further than that. It went to how the team
played as a whole.
It was sad that
certain people weren't playing last night. I don't mean Alexander. I
mean Branch. If Branch was playing, then the game would have been a
perfect line up. With Alexander sitting (sprained knee), the
Seahawks were able to do something they should have done from the
first game of this season; try to rely on our best player's
(Hasselbeck) best attribute (his arm).
The Seahawks came
out throwing with an amazing passing game. Instead of going for
short rushes, Hasselbeck threw short passes. The game was perfectly
shifted in offensive styles, and that is what left the Seahawks in
command of the game (well, that and San Francisco's inability to do
anything). The rushes were limited, and they were handled by a
player who is coming into his prime (Morris) instead of a player
who's prime ended over a year ago (Alexander).
The only thing
that could have made this game even better would be knowing if this
can become a new playing style for Seattle instead of Holmgren's one
time solution to the loss of Alexander from the field. If this is
how the games will play out for the rest of the season, I think the
season could easily be turned around. Afterall, Seattle is up by a
game and played with a good level of intelligence last night...
...as opposed to
S.F. and their complete lack of intelligent thinking. It's one thing
to try to go for the fourth down conversion on 4th and 1 right near
the end zone. That was a gutsy move, but the pay off could have been
a nice moral boost and a shift in the momentum as the first half was
winding down. However, when S.F. went for a 4th and 3 conversion
later on, that's when it was no longer about guts and was more about
letting arrogance (of which there was no reason for any to be found
in that game) and cockiness take control of your thinking. The
saddest part (for S.F...not for Seattle) was that both plays could
have been used to get a couple of very easy field goals.
Francisco was pretty much doomed from the start, but they could have
easily used those points. Could they have been useful in the game?
Probably not. That would not be enough to shift the momentum in that
backwards and lop-sided of a game. However, it's a different thing
preparing for your next game after a loss than after a shut out
loss. Just ask the Seahawks after their horrible humiliation by the
Steelers last month.
I will end my
Seahawks thinking with one last thought. Was it coincidence that the
Seahawks did incredibly well without Alexander? Maybe. However, I'm
more inclined to think that this was enough to get Holmgren to look
to what was working well for the first eight games of the season. It
was not the running game and has not been the running game for quite
some time. It's always been Hasselbeck's arm and the large field of
receivers' (Hackett, Branch, Engram, Burleson, and so on) hands. Now
that Holmgren has had to give up his crutch (Alexander) for a game,
it might be enough to open his eyes to who the real offensive powers
of the 2007 Seahawks are...and here's a hint; it's not the now
fallen offensive power of the 2005 Seahawks.
On a different
note, I did get Super Mario Galaxy last night. It's not a bad
game...so far. However, I must say that I'm not nearly as impressed
as I thought I would be. This may be my own fault, since I have
hyped the game, in my eyes, for the last couple of months. I have
wanted this game quite badly, and it seemed like it could do no
As for the wrong
it can do, there are a few issues I must get in the open.
First of all, the
unusual and alternative gravity scheme is cool...but also very
annoying. It's interesting to see Mario walk all the way around a
planet that's the diameter of a house. That's fun to see and opens
up a few new ideas to the Mario game play. However, there's some
issues with directional controls during this. Mainly it is just hard
to determine, in a hurry, what direction goes where when the camera
and gravity suddenly change your perspective. Usually it's
manageable, but not when you are on an area in which any wrong step,
no matter how minor, could lead to Mario's demise.
Another issue is
that, like with all Mario in 3D type games, the camera is crap.
Compared to Mario 64, it's well refined and amazing to use, but
compared to what one would expect for the 3D front runner franchise,
it is just not there yet. Maybe we will soon see a Mario game with a
solid camera, but I think it won't be for at least another two
Nintendo consoles. At least, like my other complaint with
perspectives, it is not a game breaker...just an additional bit of
The Wiimote usage
is another complaint. In it's core, the controls are great. You
move, re-center the camera, and crouch/duck with the nunchuck. With
the Wiimote you can make some camera rotational changes, jump, and
pause the action with the buttons. With a shake of the Wiimote,
Mario will make a spin attack (or a spin jump if in the air). This
is all good. However, the ability with star bits is an annoying
exercise in obsessive collection.
Star bits? Sorry,
I jumped ahead there. The game lets you collect star bits by waving
your cursor (from the Wiimote) over them. You can then fire these
bits at enemies or collect them to unlock new areas. You also gain a
new life for each 50 bits you collect. The problem is that while
playing the game you have to keep your Wiimote pointed at the
screen. You cannot simply relax and play the game like you could
with past Mario titles (not worrying about pointing at the screen).
You cannot even play like Zelda: TP (on the Wii). Zelda at least
only required Wiimote aiming when using items. Mario requires it
almost all the time, unless you don't care about firepower,
unlocking new hidden levels, and gaining new lives...in other words,
you almost have to do this obsessive pointing and painting the
screen constantly with the Wiimote.
At least that part
can be made a little more enjoyable by playing the game co-op. I
have not tried this yet, but my understanding makes it sound
interesting. Supposedly (and I could be wrong), one player plays
Mario and does the usual running and jumping stuff. The second
player is the one who paints the screen with the cursor for star
bits and also shoots them at enemies. At least that makes the game
more enjoyable, in theory, for the Mario player.
The main annoyance
I've had so far is different than I expected. It's what happens when
you die against a boss. I've only played through the first world so
far, but the boss did kill me (just short of me killing it, I
learned on my next life). When you start this level, you first kill
some enemies to get to the boss area. Then you get a cut scene with
Baby Bowser, and then the actual boss fight starts. When/if you die,
you must start from the start of the level. This isn't too bad since
it's a short level...too bad the cut scene is not all that
short...and there is no way to skip it (believe me, I tried). If I
did not beat this boss on my second attempt, I would have quit since
I could not take seeing that cut scene again.
At least the boss
fight, beyond that annoyance, was fun and took a great liberty with
Galaxy's alternate gravity scheme. It's really interesting having to
not just think in 3D, but in a whole new take on 3D so far removed
from our own.
When you also
throw in the new powers of Mario, this game is shaping up to be
good. The only main power I've used so far was the Bee Suit. In this
mode, you still can do most Mario actions, but you also can hover
and slightly fly for short periods of time. The only down side is
that water or damage will remove this power from you.
I am still really
wanting to enjoy this game, and I am trying...I just hope that the
bad parts (especially collecting star bits) does not kill my
enthusiasm before I have fulfilled Mario's journey. At least there
is a nice change from past 3D Mario games...when you re-enter a
level to collect extra stars (like you had to in Sunshine and 64),
you only have three stars per level (at least that's the most I've
seen so far) and the level does change quite a bit for each
I suppose I must
add one more negative before I end this. If you remember the ice
sliding areas of Mario 64 (the penguin races), and if you hated them
(like I did...and from the sounds of most people I've met, like many
other people did), there is bad news. It has returned, but in the
form of riding a ray (manta ray...fish), and using the tilt sensor
to move. It's not as bad as the motion sensing in Monkey Ball Banana
Blitz (that was beyond unplayable), but it's not great by any means.
There's even a Monkey Ball style mode in the game which has you
riding a big ball...but at least that's not nearly as bad as it
sounds...unlike the ray racing.
I'd rather listen
to Baby Bowser's introduction scene for the first boss fight another
twenty times in a row than do another ray level...which, I sadly
realize, is going to happen again soon. Which one? The Baby speech
or the ray? Both...
for 48 hours, 360 owners with Live will be able to
download Carcassonne for free. This is in addition to there
being some XBox classic titles being available for download on Live.
The classic games
include Halo, Fable, and Psychonauts. I'm glad to see that
Psychonauts will be readily available, since, from what I
understand, it was a great platformer that was ignored it's first
time around. I have to admit that I was part of the majority of
gamers (those who ignored the game) and this is a great idea of
bringing such an under appreciated game into a new light. However,
and there is always a however, I do have some issues.
The main issue is
that these are games (with maybe the exception of Psychonauts...never
kept up with Double Take's fight for backwards compatibility) that
are backwards compatible with the 360. This is not an issue on it's
own, but when you factor in price ($15 per game...or 1200 points)
you start to see something else. If you have Live, you can download
backwards compatibility updates for free (even without Live, you can
use a CD/DVD burner and a PC to get them). Most of these games are
ones that retail, used, for less than $15. So, the cost is just not
being justified. You fail to get a box, the actual disc, and a
physical instruction sheet, but you pay more.
Also, I noticed
that Fable is listed...I wonder if that is The Lost Chapters or if
it's the original game. If it's the original, it's a double insult
since the original was replaced with The Lost Chapters when the game
went to the budget price point ($20) a couple years ago. True,
Microsoft has an unusual price idea for TLC, since they mention a
SRP of around $30-$40 for TLC if you take place in one of their play
tests, which includes TLC as a free gratuity item.
My other problem
with this, versus buying the actual disc for a game, is that I am
sick of content tied to both a system and a profile. If your 360
breaks down, which is a strong possibility, there are lock outs in
place to prevent you from seamlessly transferring your downloaded
(and paid for) content. This applies to almost any console in the
modern era of online and download friendly consoles. It's done to
prevent you from downloading a game, copying your profile to a
friend's console and then downloading the game for him/her for free.
I think I've had
every major console (Playstation, PS2, Playstation, GCN,
Playstation, XBox...and there were multiple PSX in there) from the
last few generations break down on me at one point or another. I
don't like the prospect of jumping through hoops (and an overly long
customer service phone call) to get back my content after the
console inevitably dies. In fact, I feel that I have trusted too
much by downloading anything to any of my consoles at a premium
My point in this
rambling statement is simple; if you really want any of these
backwards compatible games and you do want the actual game and not
just a convenient game that never needs to have the disc inserted,
you will get more hitting eBay or Gamestop and buying the game used.
You may even find a new copy of some of these on eBay for less than
the 1200 points/$15 required for the download...and the game will be
yours, as opposed to a end user agreement and a use license.
To shift gears, I
played a bit more of Super Mario Galaxy last night and am starting
to get into the game. I still think the controls have some issues
when it comes to how altered gravity perceptions come into play with
what direction is what on the analogue stick. I cannot tell you how
many times I was frustrated trying to walk around a nearly round
object because I could not get Mario to walk in a straight line
around the object once he changed his idea of up and down.
However, I am
starting to get more into the game. The only parts that I still
dread facing again are either more ray surfing (I really wish
Nintendo would stop including this and penguin slide races in their
Mario titles) or more swimming. Yes, it wouldn't be Mario without
swimming. However, it wouldn't be 3D Mario without the swimming
controls being infuriating. Despite having a more 3D friendly of
controller (analogue sticks) in recent years, this is a different
type of 3D that includes too much freedom of movement. It is time
for the design of swimming (and zero gravity) controls to be
redesigned from the ground up in all 3D platformers.
At least the
non-free moving areas are becoming more enjoyable as I play the
game. The bosses are fun to face and require a unique sense of
creativity in defeating. It's a level of creativity never before
found in a platformer. For example, one boss is a giant spider. I
hope that did not spoil the game for anyone (it shouldn't, but some
people are too trigger happy on yelling "TEH SPOILERZ!11!"). The
boss is in a web in the center of an O shaped chunk of rock. You
have to use the web to fire Mario at the bosses weak spots, using
motion sensing to aim when to put force on the web once Mario is in
it. Another boss has Mario fighting on a small round planet filled
with magma. You have to get the boss to burn itself (by ground
pounding into the weaker areas of the planet and hitting magma) to
hurt it...but once hurt, the boss runs (like how Mario does when on
fire) and you must run away from the boss to catch up on the other
side of the planet.
However, one of my
favorite level designs that did take advantage of the Wiimote nicely
was one in which you float in a bubble over a swamp filled with
poison. You use the Wiimote to blow on the bubble (by pointing
behind the bubble and clicking A to blow) to safely guide Mario
through, while avoiding traps. It's a simple design concept, but it
is pulled off into a really fun and unique experience that breaks up
any tedium you may feel from just running around small round
Anyway, I am now
through the first two worlds (using old terminology in which each
world has one final boss battle). They were both fun to play
through, but I'm now, sadly, at the first world that includes
swimming. It's sad that, with a water based environment, that Metal
Mario did not find his way back here from Mario 64.
I don't know if
I'll go for a perfect (get all stars) ending on this game. I just
want to play to a sense of completion before Mass Effect and Rock
Band pull me from the Wii and back to the 360. Having less than a
week to go in that goal, 100% perfect is not an option for me...but
it doesn't mean I'm not going back into each galaxy ("level")
multiple times to get some extra stars along the way.
I came across this
Rock Band DLC prices and lists (thanks Tangwich), and I cannot
even begin to say how much more I am hyped for Rock Band than I was
just 24 hours ago...and I was pretty damned pumped already.
Basically, RB will
sell songs for a lower price than GH2 and GH3 content packs. RB will
go for $5.49 for a three pack (as opposed to GH packs going for
$6.25). It's not a huge price difference, but it does add up over
the long run. Plus, when you consider that more content packs are
announced and quasi-dated for RB than for GH3, this is a major leg
up on the competition. On top of that, the songs can be purchased
individually for a range of $0.99 to $2.99 per song, with the
typical track coming in at $1.99. This means a three pack being
bought in separate pieces will still run at a lower price than a
three pack of GH3 songs.
In addition to the
price difference being small, you must remember what all you get for
a lower price. You don't just get the programming for the lead and
bass/rhythm guitar...you also get the vocal track and the drum track
in that programming. No matter how you look at it, it comes out as a
far better deal for the price. Even at the same price as a GH3 pack,
this would be cheaper in value-to-price comparisons.
myself, the most important part of this news is what is being
planned for such a quick release. There will be a total of four
Metallica songs (Blackened, ...And Justice for All, Ride The
Lightning, and Enter Sandman) all ready to go before the game is
even a week old. You can also take into account that Who's Next will
be out, supposedly, on the week after the game launches. Then you
have Queens of the Stone Age also coming along during the first
week. Beyond that, you have covers, sadly, of some good old Black
Sabbath coming in the first full week of December.
If Harmonix can
keep up this pace of constantly flooding the Marketplace with new
songs, tracks, albums, and song packs, then RB will easily take the
crown as the must have rhythm game for the year...and probably for
the next couple of years. At least until Harmonix decides to release
a new sequel to RB. That is assuming that the content packs keep
coming and don't dry up right after the new year (which I don't
foresee being a problem).
Massive has announced that dynamic (updated) ads will start to
flow in to GH3 on both the 360 and the PC. So, while RB is giving us
content for a cheaper price and with more variety (leaving more
potential for losses on revenue, depending on the structure of their
contracts with artists and record studios), GH3 is milking the money
Let me clarify
that. So, GH3 (Neversoft/Activision) is charging more per song pack
than RB (Harmonix/EA). Yet they also have in game ads that will
bring in a constant stream of money, since these ads are not ones
that a company simply pays once to be forever in the title. This is
a source of constant cash for the publisher (and maybe for the
developer). Since I have not seen the same said of Rock Band, I will
assume that it could happen, but I'll also assume that it did not
So, it sounds to
me like Rock Band may cost a higher install charge (price of game
plus instruments), but it will also include cheaper downloads, more
instruments for the install price, and potentially no whoring of the
game to advertisers (or at least constant annoying whoring via
dynamic ads). GH3, on the other hand, costs less to purchase (only
$70 less with two fewer instruments), has more expensive and less
varied downloads, and whores itself out to whoever wants to pop on
an ad (thus earning more constant cash to the people behind the
game). Personally, with this being the case, and with GH2 not having
dynamic ads, I really am starting to get a bitter taste in my mouth
over GH3 DLC prices...and the game as a whole.
Also, for records
sake, if I wanted ads, or if I wanted dynamic ads, I would stick
with TV, radio, or movies. When I'm gaming, I will not even
acknowledge ads, unless they get in the way of the game...then you
can be assured that the ads will not encourage me to purchase
anything, and they may even encourage me to not purchase future
games from the publisher or developer of the ad plagued crap I'm
Looks like what I
(as well as many others) have been saying for a while will be true;
GH3 was only an appetizer for the real meal of Rock Band. Once RB is
here, I think GH3 will be put into a long and deep coma.
Today I'm going to
go a bit scientific on your asses. It's still in the name of video
games (in particular the argument of violent games causing or not
causing violent children), but it is sort of on the science side. If
this is not something you'd like, then you can come back on Monday
for some less scientific stuff.
I always love
these supposed studies that
try to link video game violence with real world violence. When I
say I love them, I mean I love reading how wrong or short sighted
they tend to be.
I work in a field
(during the day) that requires a lot of
matters. I could even add more, but I'll stop there, since this
is a geek web site, and not a nerd web site (I like to call my day
job my "nerdy side" and the web site is my "geeky side").
I listed those
links just to show that I'm not blowing smoke out of my ass when I
say I know about these things. It's good to establish
credibility...and yes, I am an author on each of these critically
So, when I see
these "violent video games causes violent kids" articles I'm left
with a couple of thoughts. The first being that psychology papers
seem to undergo a lot less scrutiny and validation prior to being
The second thought
(which ties in to the first one) is that there is a serious issue in
most of these articles about causality very coincidence. Let me
explain that. Causality, which is what these types of articles argue
in favor of, says that violent game playing causes violent children.
Without violent games these violent kids would be pacifists and
would welcome non-aggression into their lives. With violent games,
causality says, the kids become violent in turn.
a different idea. It would say that violent children are more drawn
to violent media and other examples of violence, but neither one
caused the other to exist. It would be saying that without violent
games (and media), that Billy (picking a random name that would be
considered child-like) would still be violent...but if violent media
exists, then Billy may happen to choose to participate in being a
spectator of that media instead of warm and happy media that depicts
no violence. At the same time, there may even be some violent
children who like non-violent media (which these studies do not
often times point out).
If I wrote or
co-authored a journal article in the biological/life science field
(microbiology or immunology would be my areas of experience...maybe
with a touch of bio-chem) and made the conclusion that A (let's say
violent games) caused B (let's say violent behavior) without
disproving that A may just be related to B through coincidence, then
my article would be rejected. I should know because half of the
papers I've been involved with have been rewritten and corrected in
the review process (which is followed by publication...there is
causality there...if a paper is rejected then it will not be
published), and some of these papers were not accepted on first pass
because they did not set up a proper argument, with evidence, that A
believe that violent media does not cause violent behavior. In fact,
I would argue in favor of the idea that many people like to relax
(the purpose of media is to find enjoyment...which I like to also
couple with relaxation) with something that is slightly (or
considerably) in tune with their personalities. For example, I like
fantasy, and therefore I like RPGs and D&D. I'm more than happy to
admit that. These violent kids are, quite probably, attracted to
violent media because they have some attraction, on a psychological
level, to what they contain. It could be that Billy loves the
adrenaline rush that is harder to find in non-violent games than in
violent ones. It could be that Billy loves the way that most violent
games have higher production values and Billy loves to be visually
stimulated. It could be a lot of things.
The only true and
almost 100% accurate test of the causality issue would be illegal in
the US under modern research guidelines. It would be to force
certain items out of a child's life by forcing them to live in a
self contained "world". Then you must take genetics into account by
having only identical twins (and
no left handed ones...not picking on lefties, since I am
sinister myself, but our brains are messed up in terms of the
natural order of development) living in separate "worlds". You need
a large number of test subjects to eliminate the randomness of error
and to set the
p-value to a safe number if any conclusions can be obtained.
So, now we have
our 1000 subjects (1000 would be a good starting point) made up of
500 sets of twins. Each subject lives in a self contained "world"
The Truman Show). Now you need solid actors in each world that
remain constant, like in that movie. You have to make sure than each
actor is able to fully duplicate and replicate the actions of all
other actors in all other "worlds". That will be hard since you'll
need other children (non-test ones) in each "world" to act
identically. Now let the children live. One sibling of each set of
identical twins will have access to violent games and the other
sibling will not.
Check on them in
15 years. Then you'll have your data.
However, there are
other ways that are less cruel and expensive, but also not as
accurate or conclusive (real science is more about forming a
hypothesis that seems to fit the rule but could, in all possibility,
be rejected in the future with additional research and greater means
of testing the hypothesis in question). That would be to run a test
without such a strong hypothesis (violent games cause violence), and
instead do a case study (study some children without fitting them
into the specific rules of a black/yes or white/no situation). This
would allow you to see who these children really are. Also, you need
to keep in mind that during childhood kids will change quickly.
Afterall, that is the time when brains are developing, stimuli is
abundant, and when the most pressure is put on a person.
Also, look a bit
further into the past of a subject. When were they first allowed to
play violent media? When did the child first show signs of a hostile
psyche? In any case that a child started being violent before being
exposed to violent games the idea of violent media causing violence
is obviously null. There is simply too many factors to just say that
if two factors co-exist than one causes the other.
It's like on the
anti-immigrant (or "bear patrol") episode of The Simpsons.
Springfield started a bear patrol force after a bear wandered into
town. The masses loved this because there were no more bears (the
first and only one was tranquilized and removed earlier on). Lisa
tried to show that the bear patrol did not eliminate bears simply by
existing, and offered an example to Homer; she had a rock and no
tigers were present, so her rock "obviously" got rid of the tigers,
she claimed with intended sarcasm. Homer still fell for this and
offered to buy the rock from Lisa.
Lisa would be
myself (and the people who actually care enough to look into what is
being claimed by authority figures who have turned against their
better judgments). Homer, and the rest of the town, would be the
parents who are either short sighted enough or impatient enough to
look for a quick fix in raising their children (and therefore will
take this study at face value and not challenge it with their own
I'm not saying all
studies like this one are wrong. However, I'm saying that we, as
intelligent people (or at least people with supposed intelligence),
need to challenge things in life. Sometimes you will find something
to not look right in your eyes, and sometimes you will. Sometimes
you'll change your opinions on things (it even happens to sinister
people like myself...) and sometimes you'll possibly strengthen your
current views. However, if you don't challenge life and conventional
wisdom from time to time then the world would be a different place;
the Earth would be the center of the universe, Earth would be flat,
blood letting would be a miracle cure all, we would not have
recycling (and other environmental ideas and practices), we would
still have rampant slavery, we would...we would just be ass
So, in conclusion,
I just want to say that I need proof of violent media causing
violence before I'll agree to it. As a violent game player, and as
someone who's majority of friends and acquaintances are as well, I
have not seen it nor experienced it. In fact, my friends who are the
most into violent games are actually the most gentle of my friends.
The person I know who I would call the most violent never got too
much into violent games beyond Street Fighter II (and that was more
than 10 years ago that he last played any fighting games) and is
actually more of a fan of strategy games. Show me how my life fits
into this study, Douglas Gentile.
For Those Who Don't
Have Flash Plug-Ins...
This Site Links
Contact Us Disclaimer