So, on my old blog I spent 2-3 hours researching for an upcoming
article debunking 10 violent game myths. I posted this article on a
social bookmarking site (digg), and tons of trolls came out saying crap
like "badly written article, Downvote!" and one even visited a link to
the pro-family group I called nutjobs for making up a claim that violent
games allow kids to 'sodomize victims with broomsticks'. Something
that I was pretty sure no game had in it.... The trolls then visited the
groups site and I had to take the post down and the whole blog, to
prevent libel.
But... the actual post that I linked on the site
was debunking violent game myths. I am going back to recreate the post
and debunk 5 violent game myths... With links to debunk them if
possible... Here goes....
I will try to say why I think the lie is
being spread, and then disprove it.... Below the paragraph about each
lie I will write a section called "Data on Lie", which will give rough
estimates (in %) of how severe the lie is (how drastic the claim is
compared to the truth), Popularity (how much it's being said in the
media since it's conception), recent popularity (how popular it is in
the media now), and respread (how much people have spread the lie in
comments, etc, intentionally or not)
5: Violent games have controllable Rape scenes in them (really going strong now)
So the following article linked in this
debunking of mine is spreading this lie that has been used dozens of
times on anti-gaming articles bashing the SCOTUS EMA vs Brown decision.
The lie is that there are violent games that have virtual rape in them
where the player rapes a defenseless woman character in the game.... You
have the Bulletstorm controversy saying that the game could cause real
life sexual violence, then a biased claim by the psychologist in the
article that violent games have caused real life rapes to occur, without
any citing of any real cases... And many, many other articles calling
violent games 'rape simulators'.... Where did this come from?
You
get the morons complaining about violent games going to the next level
by saying violent games have rape in them to increase the moral panic,
that's what.... And the truth is, is that there hasn't been a
controllable rape scene in a violent game since "Custer's Revenge" in
1989!, an adult game not even sold in normal game stores, then!
I hear the claim constantly from various people... Including this Connecticut anti-gaming AG complaining
about the Cal law being held unconstitutional by the courts before it
got to SCOTUS.. I have heard it at least twice in articles bashing
SCOTUS, and in many comments of articles I have surveyed in my study looking for anti-gaming comments to see what their severity is.
Data on lie:
Severity 100%
Popularity 55%
Recent Popularity 75%
Respread 30%
4: Violent games are marketed to kids
This
myth is less drastic than the first one, but is still constantly spread
around. The truth is this one has been used in many different ways, all
claiming violent games are marketed to kids for different reasons.
There isn't one common reason why this is true... But My article on this
(here) basically says that the ESRB ratings are often misconstrued as
GOVT enforced by people who do the same thing with MPAA ratings.. They
are both voluntary ratings and if a store doesn't enforce them they
don't get in Legal trouble, unlike what the common belief is. So when
you get a biased study like the PTC 'secret shopper survey' that says
stores sell M rated games to kids 80% of the time, you get people
thinking that the industry is marketing games to kids.
The truth is that a recent FTC study
says ESRB ratings are even better than MPAA ratings and enforcement in
stores... but that doesn't really disprove the myth.... What does,
however is the target demographic of the industry is 18-35 year olds,
according to this
page. I have heard this on many articles in gaming sites, so I trust
it.... If it were 5-9 year olds like all the anti-gamers keep saying
then I wouldn't even try to debunk this... But I have never heard any
kind of evidence to support the biased claim that violent games are
marketed to kids that isn't something ridiculous like "violent game ads
in our subway", or "kids in a game store that sells violent games that
could be seen by a kid", or recently someone on a forum said this great
claim "Look at all the Lego games, proof violent games are marketed to
kids" after saying that since there were violent game ads 'everywhere'
the claim must be true. Basically it's a lie.
Data on lie:
Severity 80%
Popularity 65%
Recent Popularity 45%
Respread 80%
3: violent games make kids violent
There
are many studies that seem to prove violent game make kids 'aggressive'
but the fact is that this lie is based on right wing journalists and
violent game 'experts' misquoting these already biased studies by saying
they prove the kids become violent after playing violent games. The
studies themselves are flawed (as my debunking
shows). Basically the studies use brainwave scanning on both groups of
kids, kids who play violent games , and kids who don't. The aggression
levels are proven through that, and through a competitive task that pits
2 people (1 from each group) against each other and allows the winner
to blast loud static noise into the loser's ears. The study says that
the kids who play violent games hold down the 'blast' button longer.
They don't say how much, but from a comment on an article on a recent
study, it was only milliseconds. Yeah. Nice proof. But if that wasn't
the only thing making these studies flawed, we have the fact that many
of these studies fail to even measure tendencies that could cause
aggression in the kids before the study starts, so basically the more
'aggressive' kids aren't even checked to see that another thing is
making them 'aggressive', and the checks are right after they play the
games, no checks done next day, next month. These are short term
studies... Not good on seeing if a kid will 'go violent' after playing
Doom. To make things worse, there is no eliminating gamers from these
studies... Using a 18 year old GTA fan as proof of 'aggression', by
playing GTA is a bit biased. Don't you think... Now all of this proves
the studies have holes. But where did the violence claim come from, the
one that says violence is proven by these studies...
From the
'violent game experts on the news', the hack psychologists purposely
misquoting studies after columbine, on morning talk shows. This lie was
spread like wildfire back in 1999 and many people outright believe it
without questioning. It's sad.
Data on lie:
Severity 100%
Popularity 45%
Recent Popularity 25%
Respread 70%
2: Violent games make school shooters better shooters in real life.
This
one is really alarming, not very popular in lies being spread by the
media, but really alarming, none the less. It basically says that Doom,
allows players to be better shooters in real life, and uses the evidence
in a school shooting predating Columbine as proof. The shooter was very
accurate shooter in the shooting, and an avid Doom fan. They said "he
had never picked up a gun before!" and then said that Doom made him the
better shooter..... Without debunking possibility of him not going to a
gun range, and actually practicing for real... Ok... Now the think is
that the Columbine Shooters also were Doom obsessed.... But the FBI
report mentioned that they missed most of their shots! Why?
Recoil, the force that pushes the gun angle up after every shot.
99%
of Violent games don't have realistic recoil of weapons, Doom had none,
Quake had none, Half-life : none, only games that have good recoil are
tactical shooters. And they are so unfairly realistic that no one could
'train' on them without becoming frustrated. The shots kill not hurt in
those games, and the guns are very realistic with realistic recoil and
kickback... But they didn't really get popular till AFTER Columbine..
And since there hasn't been a school shooting with a real link to
Violent games since...
Recoil prevents someone from hitting their
shots if they hold down the trigger like they do in the movies and in
most violent games. It causes a real life gun to spin out of control,
especially an Assault Weapon like a MP5, or any Assault Rifle. The
tactic taught in older violent games available in 1999 basically was
(run into room, hold down fire button, kill all enemies, let go, rinse
and repeat). This doesn't work in real life. The person would be
shooting the ceiling if they tried this for more than 2 seconds. The
military teaches real soldiers to fire in short bursts to minimize the
recoil... A debunking of this in Doom was done by me recently on this
blog... Here
it is. There is no way a violent game will make you a better shot. The
tactics are incompatible with real life... At least they were before
realism was added to FPS games in 2003+. Realistic tactical shooters
weren't really popular till Far Cry (2003). Before that it was all no
recoil in weapons...
So no way in hell did the school shooters get better at firing a real gun by playing FPS games of that time.
Data on lie:
Severity 100%
Popularity 45%
Recent Popularity 25%
Respread 10%
1: violent games break down the inhibition to kill
Ok... I've debunked this in my attack on the amicus brief with tons of lies submitted on CA's side of the SCOTUS debate (go here
for the debunking) but I will debunk it again... The claim is that
violent games are used in the military to break down the inhibition to
kill. This blog completely debunks the claim, which is another claim spread by the "hack psychologists" after columbine...
Violent
games are used in the military to train group tactics, it's no secret.
The Marines licensed doom for this purpose... But there is no branch of
the military that uses them to break down the inhibition to kill. The
above blog says that the inhibition to kill is part of what Boot camp is
for, to make recruits automatically follow orders. This, is really the
only way to make recruits fire when they are commanded to...
Seriously... A video game won't do this... You need to break down the
recruit by Intimidation, exhaustion, and other factors to make them act
automatically. This needs an environment where you cannot leave the
environment, and have limited freedoms, and are being constantly
screamed at for making any mistakes, and are being worked out so bad
that your constantly exhausted. No video game does this. Period.
Data on lie:
Severity 100%
Popularity 75%
Recent Popularity 15%
Respread 90%
