Should PVP events come with a warning?

[Brooklyn]

The scientific evidence is growing the PVP violence, in particular, can be damaging to your mental health. The question is should we suggest or require all PVP event co-ordinators to post a warning to that effect… in their promotions. i think it is the responsible thing to do...

This a version of one I recently posted

PVP Violence is Bad for You Mental Health




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/

"One study reveals that young men who are habitually aggressive may be especially vulnerable to the aggression-enhancing effects of repeated exposure to violent games," said psychologists Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., and Karen E. Dill, Ph.D. "The other study reveals that even a brief exposure to violent video games can temporarily increase aggressive behavior in all types of participants."

http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html


Think About It​

Or simply



Warning: PVP Violence has been shown to affect areas of the brain associated with emotional arousal and self-control, inhibition and attention.

!!!WARNING!!!: IF YOU ARE A DEDICATED PVP PLAYER THIS THREAD MAY BE BAD FOR YOUR MENTAL HEALTH AND THE HEALTH OF YOUR COMMUNITY​

 

[Kiriku Surgun]

with the current engine and stuff I would say no..
It's more like game of tag. With VU10 I'm not sure how 'realistic'it will be, if it is I think a warning would be good.

Most people will think its utterly bs to do, but it can affect your state of mind.

 

[Pepto]

It's not going to make a difference.

The ESRB throws age restrictions all over games but underage players are all playing them.

Warnings all over packs of cigarettes and yet people smoke.

Warnings are only placed to protect the supplier 'in case'. If someone gets aggressive IRL due to a PvP event you hosted in a game...I seriously doubt you can be held liable

 

[Sidewinder]

No.

Games don't influence the majority.

These warnings have no affect.

These scientific studies are BS.

 

[GeorgeSkywalker]

These scientific studies are BS.

I'd beg to differ. Scientific study and progress is far from BS. It is science after all that's brought you the computer, and indeed computer games, mobile phones, television, satellite GPS etc etc Would you say all those devices and such that you enjoy are BS?


Edit:
I read the first report. They did say more research is needed. Which is my conclusion the research as it is does not indicate violent games are bad or good. More research which specifically answers these questions and in what way such games are good or bad is needed imho.



.

 

[Sidewinder]

I'd beg to differ. Scientific study and progress is far from BS. It is science after all that's brought you the computer, and indeed computer games, mobile phones, television, satellite GPS etc etc Would you say all those devices and such that you enjoy are BS?

.

I didn't say scientific study is BS as a whole.

I said these scientific studies are BS. Namely the ones about computer games making people mass murderers.

 

[PW3CKA]

Is there a influence ? Yes, for mentaly weaker people :0

Should the warning be posted ? No, mentaly weaker people are not going to read it

 

[Blake Seven]

In my conclusion:

More Research Needed = Our funding is running out so we've said something contraversial and left it deliberately open ended hoping someone will push more money our way so that we can continue justify our sad existence and delay getting a proper job even longer

But then again I always was a cynic

Don't you just love being told what is good or bad for you by someone with a much thinner grasp on reality than yourself. Forcing 99.99% of the population to change rather than help the 0.01% who need it.

[/rant]

 

[Sissi]

Brooklyn once again....

Monty Python seems to pop up in my mind everytime I read a Brooklyn post, some1 else decide if thats good or bad..

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Computer games don’t affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we’d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.

 

[Kiriku Surgun]

Computer games don’t affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we’d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.

Try wire your brains up and play different type of games.. then tell me why games use certain area's while playing?
Sounds a bit un-educated and ignorant here.. if you cant see it, it's not there right?

It's really interesting because some lack or have to much of certain fluids in their brain and gaming might be a remedy for just that, if you need agression, relaxation or some other kind of mood influence...

Saying it's not there is keeping yourself stupid and makes you look like a fool.
Saying that it defenitly has bad side effects does the same.
It does effect however how much and in what way exactly is yet to be determined, just keep your mind open.

Great example about pac-man, realy something to relate with

 

[Brooklyn]

Thoughtful responses get thoughtful answers

with the current engine and stuff I would say no..
It's more like game of tag. With VU10 I'm not sure how 'realistic'it will be, if it is I think a warning would be good.

Most people will think its utterly bs to do, but it can affect your state of mind.

It's not going to make a difference.

The ESRB throws age restrictions all over games but underage players are all playing them.

Warnings all over packs of cigarettes and yet people smoke.

Warnings are only placed to protect the supplier 'in case'. If someone gets aggressive IRL due to a PvP event you hosted in a game...I seriously doubt you can be held liable

Even if it just raises awareness or gets people to think about the effects of their long term PVP involvement might be having in their real life… cigarette smoking is down quite a bit since the introduction of warnings and other measures and we are all the better for it. I view the gaming and entertainment industries just as the same as the tobacco and just as irresponsible in the production of their products and their responses to negative research and concern over the potential negative effects of their use over the long.

Edit:
I read the first report. They did say more research is needed. Which is my conclusion the research as it is does not indicate violent games are bad or good. More research which specifically answers these questions and in what way such games are good or bad is needed imho.
.

The reason I chose first report is because of the nature of the MRI study… and that the results is a literal real time graphic of what is going on in specific areas of the brain and not behavioral observation studies like the APA studies. Also because the comparison was between two types of high action games… the telling part for me was the suppression of the areas associated with self-control, inhibition and attention in the PVP game… This would not be unexpected as the human form is hard wired in us to evoke a powerful emotional response…

When you couple this with the other MRI research that shows that the human brain in the areas of self-control and inhibition, isn’t fully developed (and one of the last to be developed)… until one is in their mid-twenties… we can see that hours and hours of PVP play through out these formative years can begin to shape that development in very negative ways… It will probably not produce mass murders on a grand scale as one has suggested… but it probably will produce some… but more importantly it can build, a hardwired, groundwork for growing numbers of sociopaths in general. We do need more research of the kind in the first article to tease out the PVP factor… and their long term effects… so perhaps a warning is necessary before you begin hard wiring your brain in PVP.

 

[Mika]

I must confess :<

After mindlessly slaugthering exo's and chirpys and i had insasiable lust to stom on small chickens irl, then proceed ripping a racoon to hell and shreds, wear it as a hat while I ran around biting peoples throats off with my bare teeth.

jk I just want to shoot sheep with airguns...


The scientists fail to see whos the problem. If i had a kid that was under 18 and wanted to play a game that is aged 18. I woulden't really say "here you go, lots of nice gore and blood, cussing and killing ! Play as much as you want"....

ill say one thing "WHERE IS THE PARENTS!" as adults THEY got the responsibility for their KIDS and what they do.. if a 12 year old kid went nuts and shot half a school he should get mental help, and the parents should get lifetime in jail. IMHO.

and I always find it abit weird that humans can get to be called "unhuman" I mean. we are a dominant species of wild mamal too here on planet earth

I belive that the same killing emotions would be triggered if 5 small kids where continoues bouncing a ball over and over.

 

[Brooklyn]

ill say one thing "WHERE IS THE PARENTS!" as adults THEY got the responsibility for their KIDS and what they do..

and I always find it abit weird that humans can get to be called "unhuman" I mean. we are a dominant species of wild mamal too here on planet earth

The word is inhuman...

Blaming parents is the easy way out of accepting responsiblity for what you do and advocate... as an organization... industry... educaton system... we all bear a responsibilty for creating the world "our" children grow-up in... and now especiaily in the alternative one's they play in for hour and hours at a time... Do we really need PVP violence to be a part of that developing world view?

 

[raybrad]

should have a warning regarding pvp itself, violence is implicit

 

[kyleen]

Is there a influence ? Yes, for mentaly weaker people :0

Should the warning be posted ? No, mentaly weaker people are not going to read it

hahahahhaha yess bash the mentally weaker people, they wont know that we are even bashing them. lol... dark humor at its best.

 

[Mika]

The word is inhuman...

Blaming parents is the easy way out of accepting responsiblity for what you do and advocate... as an organization... industry... educaton system... we all bear a responsibilty for creating the world "our" children grow-up in... and now especiaily in the alternative one's they play in for hour and hours at a time... Do we really need PVP violence to be a part of that developing world view?

we dont need it no. but we need fun.

basicly if pvp bad should we simply ban all games that has pvp or violance? including super mario bros?

and you said too that " the brain is not developed till the mid 20's" if so then anyone under 25 aint cappable of their own actions. THUS meaning the parents. the parents can stop them, the game makers cant give out one body guard that will crush the TV if someone not aged wants to play it..

taking it into school saying "games are bad for you" is just pure bullshit.

in most schools now adays kids wind up in two different categories.

those who play games and the sporting social kids. everyone love and adore the sporting social kids. those who play games and might be "not so sporty" can go fck themselfs (speaking from experience)

instead of yelling and screaming oh its so bad, why not help them grow their pation for what they like? sporty kids like it when their steroid filled dad yell at them to score more goals on the soccerfield. those who play games often hate sports. give more educational options, learning differences > telling NO NO NO

aswell as MANY of those who play games are often way higher mental aged than those who dont, say example: Your a friend gang on 5, 2 irl and the rest you met on the net. you are gonna play arena tournament in WoW 5 vs 5.

kids can do that. any 16 year old can do that... not really no. I was in the final qualification to go to USA and partake the grand finals some years ago in the MLG. we didn't win but to get there it requires alot of focus, dicipline and knowledge of what infact you are doing when and where, miss out 1 second on something and you might just call it Game Over.

sure some people should simply NOT play video games, but from my irl experiences of whom was "LETS FIGHT!!??!?!?" at school from age 13 - 20 it always the "sporting kids" and those who usually drank themselfs beyond recognition each weekend figthnig with knifs and metal bars. the "gamers" never did anything wrong, were often the "smartest" in classes and so on. (if they where plotting to get world domination i dunno)

it really depends on who plays and when.

aswell as I belive the majority of EU is aged 20+ atleast of those Whom I met so far aging 22 - 40

some few ones are below 20 but I can safly say they are nothing else than what an average 20 year old would be.


It's more aggrevating and frustrating dying on a boss over and over in wow than pvp. its more frustrating to get killed by an idiot miner who has a train of mobs that he with intention dumps on you, pvp is more "organized" playing CS or alike solo I guess is different.

no human beeing is the same, no personality is the same, one cant take everyone under the same spoon. not even the "majority" each individual is different.

 

[Brooklyn]

we dont need it no. but we need fun.
basicly if pvp bad should we simply ban all games that has pvp or violance? including super mario bros?

no human beeing is the same, no personality is the same, one cant take everyone under the same spoon. not even the "majority" each individual is different.

I think... as I've been saying all along... that "PVP violence" is the issue... there is a big difference between killing an atrox and killing another person in the form of an ava and robbing him in PVP... there'e difference in clubbing a baby seal to death... compared to clubbing to death and skinning someone's baby... and we recognize that... because we are human...

Is there is no valid or justifiable need for these PVP or human as victims violent gaming senarios...

Yes every human being is different but we are not so different that we are completely unrecognizable as humans to each other... It always amazes me that when we have the PVP arguments that the proponents fail to see that they are killing another player(person) and robbing them... because they don't see them as human beings... or even representatives of human beings...
very sociopathic thinking...

 

[Zeke Sirrus]

The word is inhuman...

Blaming parents is the easy way out of accepting responsiblity for what you do and advocate... as an organization... industry... educaton system... we all bear a responsibilty for creating the world "our" children grow-up in... and now especiaily in the alternative one's they play in for hour and hours at a time... Do we really need PVP violence to be a part of that developing world view?

Sorry I disagree, parents have the ULTIMATE responsibility over what their children do.

If a child feels the need to go on a rampage destroying things or covering them in graffiti and thinks that it is OK to do so then there has been fundamental mistakes made as it grew up regarding right and wrong.

Some will blame peer pressure but extend the argument to the nth degree, if other children are actively endorsing bad behaviour it signifies a more general shift in culture away from repect for others.

The world revolves around freedom of expression and art, now that art may not be suitable for the young audience however they will grow up and they will develop the capability to understand what they are looking at.

An example springs to mind, the film Jarhead.

Children will view this film and just see marines, brutal willingness to kill, blood and guts etc. Adults watching the film would see the underlying psychology and politics associated with bringing the previously mentioned points to the foreground.

Films like this can be eye opening and are very important in that respect. If we all thought the same way as you the film should never be made, as children might see it and think that violence is ok because it was glorified in the film. It is the parents responsibility to determine when their children are old enough (or wise enough) to see beyond the blood and guts to the message that the film is trying to portray.


So a brief summary: The world and its associated art should not be made all cuddly and safe, it is the parents responsibility to ensure that their children are only exposed to what they can understand.

Cheers.

 

[Wed]

"WARNING: if u kill this pixels (atrox) u will be fine.. and if u kill this pixels (an avatar) u may go mentaly insane"

also see my signature...

 

[Pepto]

Whether it be parents or guardians the original issue lies with upbringing. Of course a chemical imbalance in the brain is beyond even a parent's power lo but then there are nice gentlemen in white jackets with needles

Why do people climb bell towers and shoot school mates etc? Initially they have a misunderstanding of right and wrong, they do not know any constructive ways to release tension, probably raised NRA and hunting is the way...and most importantly...Dad/Uncle/Grandpa keeps a small aresenal in an unlocked weapons cabinet (or has informed you where the key is) in a residential area...

Upbringing and genetic disposition determine whether you will be overly violent and aggresive, or go so far as to kill people.

I will never agree that games are the cause...however I will concede that they are likely the catalyst for an event that was going to occur as the result of any catalyst...such as Violent movies, TV, a relationship breakup.

Now if you will excuse me I'm off to write .godmode on my forehead and play in traffic

 

[Sidewinder]

Blaming parents is the easy way out of accepting responsiblity for what you do and advocate... as an organization... industry... educaton system... we all bear a responsibilty for creating the world "our" children grow-up in... and now especiaily in the alternative one's they play in for hour and hours at a time... Do we really need PVP violence to be a part of that developing world view?

1. No, that's part of the problem - not blaming parents. End of the day, they tell the kids what they can and can't play. If a child is allowed to play a game which has pvp violence, and goes on a killing spree IRL It's the parents fault for allowing the child to play. You don't punish 99% of the players for the nutjob 1%.

2. I hope you're not suggesting completely PvE MMO's. Cause that's just plain messed up.

 

[JaKst3r]

In EU if an avatar is killed in PVP - it revives.

It is a challenge, a competition between 2 (or more ) individuals - like head to head poker, golf, squash, tennis or any other competitive environment.

There IS a warning to all players entering PVP areas. You loose your posessions - you were warned.

Tough sh*t, its NOT game over. Some play for sport, some for superiority complex but i personally totally fail to see a link between the pvp system in EU and ANY relation to rl physical violence.

Thanks.

There is NO blood and guts or dismembered limbs in this game remember.

 

[Apple GREEN]

Enough warnings! PvP games exist only because there is demand for it. Society took away fighting from the kids, brought serious punisments for, but it is normal for a male to be agressive, dominant, and best of the group. I don't mean aggressive in "Bobby give me ur donut or I'll punch your teeth out", but aggressive like a hunter, provider etc... That is why martial arts are so popular, why boxers earn millions, and so do mix martial artist now days.

PvP is an escape of certain natural inborn male instincts. Not every man like pk, or pvp, some have the urge stronger, some milder. But putting warnings, and prohibiting (which is usually next step after such warnings) is pointless.

so my answer is NO

 

[squadds]

..........................

 

[Trux]

blake seven got it quite right ^^

In my conclusion:

More Research Needed = Our funding is running out so we've said something contraversial and left it deliberately open ended hoping someone will push more money our way so that we can continue justify our sad existence and delay getting a proper job even longer

But then again I always was a cynic

Don't you just love being told what is good or bad for you by someone with a much thinner grasp on reality than yourself. Forcing 99.99% of the population to change rather than help the 0.01% who need it.

[/rant]

these so-called scientific studies in our todays world mean nothing, nothing.. you can buy them at every corner, tailored as you want them.. simple as that.. also consumers don't get the study, but only a free-interpreted report on some study.. means nothing..

brook, do you brush your teeth with the brush that the TV-advertisment tells you works best? or with the competition's brush that also advertises with another scientific study that it works best? rofl..

(don't get me wrong, i'm not neglecting science generally.. scientific studies do have a meaning IF you can be sure to get complete documentation (and you can understand the docs, meaning you're a pro in the same science).. so, for us ppl not being the scientists, studies are used to manipulate us! (gz brook lol)

on topic:

no, i don't believe that pvp in EU will harm anyone's psyche!
no, i don't want a stupid US-style warning when playing a game!
no, i don't wan't sex to be forbidden because it influences ppl's state of mind!
no, i don't want that fucking soma pill that ends my personal responsibility!
no, i don't wan't an artificially de-harmed society of lies, i'll never believe!

on a personal note, brooklyn, you make me lough for suddenly recognizing that this is a game, lol, rofl.. where is the 'utopic vision mantra' that is to be defended at all cost / no thought?

PS: i see one of the 'studies' compared Medal of Honor with Need for Speed.. i'm not accepting this as 'scientific' at all.. it's like comparing juggling to race-driving.. and then proove anything because brain-state differs.. sry, for me this is a scientific fail!!
same for the other test Wolfenstein 3d vs Myst: wolfenstein requires fast reacting and response to changing environment.. my guess is it stimulates adrenalin or the like.. Myst on the other hand gives you time.. there is no twitch-based gameplay in myst, so prolly not much of an adrenalin-thing..
none of the two tests qualify for the term 'scientific' at all imo..

to get a scientific viable test going, you'd need to make two almost identical games, where the only difference is that in one of them you throw water-ballons on your opponent and a hit results in a lough-animation of the 'victim' - and in the other game you throw grenades and get a crying animation. if there are any other differences the games cannot be compared on a violence aspect!!!!!

 

[Brooklyn]

Sorry I disagree, parents have the ULTIMATE responsibility over what their children do.

If a child feels the need to go on a rampage destroying things or covering them in graffiti and thinks that it is OK to do so then there has been fundamental mistakes made as it grew up regarding right and wrong.

Some will blame peer pressure but extend the argument to the nth degree, if other children are actively endorsing bad behaviour it signifies a more general shift in culture away from repect for others.

The world revolves around freedom of expression and art,

Children will view this film and just see marines, brutal willingness to kill, blood and guts etc. Adults watching the film would see the underlying psychology and politics associated with bringing the previously mentioned points to the foreground.

So a brief summary: The world and its associated art should not be made all cuddly and safe, it is the parents responsibility to ensure that their children are only exposed to what they can understand.

Cheers.

Nice post

The statement parents are "ultimately responsible" may of have been partly true 60 years ago... but ever since the age of television growing-up in a overly-hyped, consumerist driven, multi-media, orientated society in which children have all sorts of consistant multiple adult or parental role model alternatives to chose from... dilute both the meaning and power of that responsibility.

In EU and PVP, to keep us on topic; we see how the gaming mechanisms of the sociopathic disassociation process between morality and action and the building of support and commitment to such scenarios, both within the individuals and their society, driving it's ulitmate conclusions in the form of a soldier, the realization of his father's role and a final recognition of society's role in his death... was the final extended message of "Jarhead".

If games are a preparation and reheasal for life.... what life and it's values is PVP violence preparing us for?

Game makers love to hide behind artisitc freedom of expression as a defense... and excuse for not any taking responsibilty for the products and damage they cause... both to the individual and society... By the same token we as individuals or groups can and should feel free to challenge the mindset that PVP violence is necessary for EU... and not damaging to both to the individual player and by extension the community...

Hopefull after CE2 is implemented... we can begin to fully address this important issue within the context laid out for FPC and be the first online community of citizens to voluntarily reject and end PVP violence... as bad for mental and societal health...

"Set in the future, you are invited to join an
open-ended social, economic and political
action-adventure as a human colonist on a distant alien planet. The sandbox approach allows you to choose your own path and write a unique story with others from around the world."

Now that's story worth writing
​

 

[Trux]

added PS to my post above..

 

[ReidStarr]

Brooklyn, I do not see why you posted this. The pvp in this game is tame compared to 99.99% of all games out there. Maybe Hello Kitty Island Adventure has nicer pvp if it has any.

Another thing, the odds of a completely new gamer who has no experience with violence is extremely low, probably lower than getting struck by lightning. So I do not see why we need a warning.

PS Hello Kitty Island Adventures Rules

 

[Oleg]

Brooklyn, for someone who doesn't like PvP, and is not interested in PvP, you spend a hell of a lot of time talking utter garbage about it.