unforum

[Clayfoot]

[SuperJerms]

VG's would have you actually act out the violence, versus just observing it in a movie. It is fantasy violence, but violence nontheless. This is a big difference for sexual depictions, too. Immersion is much more persuasive than observance.

[vortech]

[Clayfoot]

[SuperJerms]

Yes. I'm sure he wouldn't have figured out that the head and chest are the best places to shoot-to-kill on his own.

[vortech]

[Fenwicked]

I think what's more important here, is that even if it teaches the method, it doesn't teach the motive. You can learn how to be an excellent shot, and know the most efficient way to kill someone, but you're not going to use that knowledge without a reason.

[GabrielBlade]

Having fired both an automatic weapon and a pistol before in my life, I can quite confidantly state that my abilities with Halo, Unreal Tournament, Doom, etc, helped not one whit. Sure, I knew that a headshot would do more damage than a torso or limb shot - I think anyone who watches the news would know that. But aiming at moving targets with a mouse or a light gun is very, very, very different to aiming at moving targets with a heavy piece of metal and plastic in your hand, along with fighting things like recoil and such.



And if you're arguing the 'teaches aiming at moving targets' side, lets go ban the games at Circus' and fairs and such where you shoot the targets with a light gun, and they fall back.. what about paintball, nerf guns, etc, etc? Everything in life teaches hand eye coordination, in one way or another, just about.

[Clayfoot]

FPS games train the player to track multiple targets. That can be good or bad. For example, research shows that avid FPS players are more attuned to their surroundings when performing tasks like driving, so they may be more likely to see something dart out from the side than non-gamers.
National Geographic: Video Games Boost Visual Skills, Study Finds

[Anton P. Nym]

[INCyr]

I doubt that video games would teach someone HOW to shoot correctly, but I could see it teaching them how to track the targets, what sort of lead time is needed, etc.

</$.02>

[thunderclap8]

We're focusing on the realistic elements of games here. But what about the unrealistic ones? If someone is going to make the claim that a game taught them to shoot, that they picked up the skill while playing, well then why not other skills?

In addition to marksmanship, wouldn't Halo 2 also teach me that successful tactics can involve taking a hail of bullets to the chest? Obviously not. So even if someone were to make the claim that a violent video game desensitized them to heinous acts and demolished the person's inbuilt critical judgement in relation to the acts... well the person was still showing some critical judgment when they decided what were valuable lessons from the game and what were not. The video games did not erode their pre-existing critical thinking skills

I'm hoping I'm making sense here, my thoughts are kind of garbled. In theory I could see a video game teaching at least some elements of marksmanship. But when people claim it was the mental cause of a cold-blooded crime, that's when they don't have a leg to stand on.

[rose]

Illinois law

[CoffeeJedi]

Re: Illinois law

[Anton P. Nym]

I'm on page 5 of the law article, and the phrase that keeps running through my head is "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

Does this ever get addressed, or would I be better off investing my time elsewhere?

-- Steve doesn't think that a legal journal would make such an elementary mistake, but weirder things have happened over emotionally-charged issues.