Desensitized

[Meedan]

It is a shame that these games get so much extra publicity because of stories like the 'Manhunt' case. I think that people shouldn't look at games causing murders, but look at what the games are doing to everyone's minds. There are so few murderers created by games that nobody (including me a while ago) pays attention to those arguments.

The important thing is what the games are doing to EVERYBODY's minds, and it is important to stress the word everybody. Even after reading TFOC, I continued to play violent games. I thought the argument went that 'violent games make some people murder'. Like so many people would, I responded to that with 'well, it won't make ME murder', and to be fair, even though it is childish reasoning, it is in all probability correct. However, what I failed to understand back then was that it was training my mind for killing, whether I was going to or not.

Phrase it: "Sit here and play this violent game for 5 hours" and it sounds like fun to most people, they don't see the harm.

Phrase it: "Sit here, we'll force you to watch 5 hours of violence" and they concede that it will cause serious mental problems.

What's the difference, willingness? To add to that, playing violent games is still worse since you are the one doing the killing, and the games are made so that you are mentally saying "YESSS!" after each kill in your 'mission'. It is truly terrifying brainwashing.

[Kestrel]

I use to play some games where you killed alien monsters or nazi's. It was when I was younger. When I was younger, I also had Issues that I dont quite understand tottaly. But I just remeber I was angry. I am not really angry person at all anymore. I learned from a good uncle that you only get angry at insruance companys. Then tom Chalkos book also helped me realized (although its a re enforcement) that you make the choice to be angry. It just seems easyer for me not to be angry now. I'm a pretty content person actually. I think I choose to be so . I dont play any violent games anymore so I think that helps me as well. I dont think I'll start anytime soon either, I can always find better things to do now. Fishing ect.

[Vesko]

From violent games, I've played mostly Doom and the Unreal series. When I was little I played Doom for several weeks, and mindless killing on the screen did captivate me to an extent. But I have always liked adventure games far, far more and now adore a good story with graphics to fit, but not more than that, i.e. no mindless special effects. Unfortunately those adventure games, the really good ones I mean, are very rare, and after 1996 we see a steady decline of such titles. The various Unreal games I have played mostly from technical interest. Nowadays playing violent games doesn't make sense to me at all. They have negative effects on people, degree depending on the concrete person's psyche, but certainly always negative. Observing myself, I have found that they cut off higher mind processes, and I am unable to perform my best after playing such games. They are a big waste of time and resources for everyone.
Now I find them boring, and like Kestrel, I can always find better things to do.
I'm going to skip the recently released Doom 3 -- I've seen several non-violent screenshots and I've got technical impressions which I needed.
Here a reviewer of the game writes:

It's not going to provoke any deep thoughts or philosophical debate, but anyone looking for a good scare will enjoy this gorgeous nail-biter.

Those game-makers are like journalists -- they have a power to influence a lot of people with their products, and I can't really imagine the almost countless troubles that each and every one of them will get into for promoting violence to billions of people. Those who do not play the game are influenced by those who have played it, and the negative consequences are mind-boggling and difficult to imagine by a normal person IMHO.
We cannot and in principle must not wait for them to get their due by way of the natural law of cause and effect. Properly learned persons have to intervene to give a good example. The more positive works of literature, art and technology used for mental (spiritual) development are created, the more this negative influence will be countered. But as Thao says in the book, we had many more writers and philosophers in the nineteenth century, nowadays there are only very few remaining that are not puppets of "the root of all evil" -- money, and let us not forget, fame.

[Vesko]

I just came across this Vivendi Universal (an entertainment conglomerate experiencing financial troubles recently) game. This game is a living proof that violence and negative traits are becoming as openly promoted as it can get. I'm sure that 10 years ago, the makers of the game would never have been allowed to publish it.

Evil Genius(tm)

From http://www.sierra.com:

This is where it gets evil!

You're a malevolent mastermind bent on achieving global domination through the construction of the ultimate doomsday device. Build a secret base, gain notoriety by completing daring missions, repel the forces of justice in real-time combat, and develop evil super-weapons to complete your nefarious master plan.

Evil Genius is a tongue-in-cheek take on the spy thrillers of the '60s, offering you the unique opportunity to play the villain as you control a secret island fortress complete with powerful henchmen, loyal minions, ice-cold beauty queens, and a host of hilarious gizmos.

Features
Master all five evil gameplay elements: base building, real-time combat, minion training, techno-research, and mission deployment.
Manage your minions as you train them to develop evil technology and super-weapons.
Build your secret base and defend it against attacks by obnoxious action heroes and government agents in real time.
Find and recruit talented henchmen from a variety of exotic locations. Dispatch agents to war zones in search of talent...scour universities for ideologues...launch prison breaks to free captured henchmen.

"Master all five evil gameplay elements! Manage your minions as you train them to develop evil technology...!" And a sad, sad LOL for "...talented henchmen"???????????!!!

Note the official site's name is http://www.howevilareyou.com. "How Evil Are You?" welcomes you on the main screen. If one plays the promo video, one sees people blasted, cut, ground and squashed by other humans in a cold, unfeeling way.

How are the US thinking to stop terrorism by educating their young with such things?

If one accuses the game publishers why they let it to the market, they'll most likely say that -- see "Manhunter Blamed for Teens's Murder", discussed earlier in this topic -- they'll most likely say that of course they don't approve violence and terrorism, that's just a game which happens to be demanded by the free market, and additionally there can't be any real harm done... because... there's no evidence to the contrary, and... it's just a game.

Also now it's little surprise that the game won "Editor's Choice" by the very popular GameSpy.com and an award at E3 (Electronic Entertainment Expo), a trend-setting annual event.

[Yothu]

'modus vivendi' means 'lifestyle'
'vivendi universal' = living universal (?)

[Kestrel]

Thats the company that produced the games I use to play quite a bit.

I rather goto my lake and relax then install another one of those games.
I did enjoy the people I met, but it did block lots of creativity at times I think looking back. Enough people on earth are focused on killing, theres room for me to be focused on something else.

Also vesko, you're so right. When thao spoke of "journalist", we need to inspect excactly what that is. The threat is that they spread sensationalism, which is negitive to an extent. So are these over-violent games sensationalism ?

[Vesko]

They use violence to provoke and cash in on a strong reaction in people, which makes people want to buy the game to experience it, because of various reasons: they are too young, their emotional life is vapid, etc. so they cannot see the difference between good and bad.

I have noticed a Korean MMORPG called Mu Online, http://www.muonline.com. It's also violent.

[Marcus]

I saw on television last night that game developers are about five years off of making you cry playing a video game. They know how games can effect people and are using that to their advantage when developing games.

[Lachie]

Ok, here comes controversy!

Violent entertainment means nothing if you have the appropriate spiritual background to mitigate the damage it causes. Well, not so much damage - but control the power it gives you. Not everyone who can wield a hammer is able to smash someone's head with it.

Let me give you an example. Say you come home and someone was raping one of your children, or your wife. The intruder has got a knife, but you have got a hammer... now, i don't think there would be anyone on this forum who would stand there and say, "Please stop. I'd hit you, but i don't believe in violence. Get out, please."

This world was not designed for non-violence. it was designed for enlightened violence, as proven by Thao in attacking and killing those creatures with which reason was impossible. Remember: pacifism only works against a moral enemy.

Lachie

[Meedan]

That is not the problem. The problem is that violent video games literally turn you into a sociopath. Humans have built in instincts not to harm others. When we play these games, even if you are Thao herself, you are being conditioned to care ever so slightly less about harming others. Every time you play them, you are removing another barrier. In a situation where everyone would defend themselves with violence, someone who plays these games would take that little bit more pleasure and less abhorrence in it.

In the example of the rape, you may say violent games will help you. They will make you much more willing and content to smash the rapist's skull. You've "had to resort to violence" almost every day on your computer.

The people who think like that are the people who take pride and pleasure out of thinking "If I ever had to defend myself, I'm ready..." and fantasizing about things that might happen.

Violent games affect everyone, especially everyone on this planet.

[Vesko]

I saw on television last night that game developers are about five years off of making you cry playing a video game. They know how games can effect people and are using that to their advantage when developing games.

Marcus, does it have any relation to what was said by Steven Spielberg?
See http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/new ... meld_x.htm:

"I think the real indicator will be when somebody confesses that they cried at level 17," Spielberg said.

.

I agree that they are way off, but then the vast majority of movies do not make me cry where it could or made sense to be done. I wonder if Spielberg realizes that Holywood is failing?

In regard to the five years you mentioned, I don't think they need five years. It is not a question of technology, it is a question of a story, which could be done just as easily 20 years ago as it can be done today.


Lachie, I agree with Meedan. The visuals and sounds, and similation of reality in general, of such violent games portray that violence is rewarded. What multi-billion media conglomerates fail to realize or are not interested in realizing is that it takes only one little step to make what is portrayed on the screen completely realistic by doing it in real life. That little step never actualizes in most people to the full extent of killing someone, but it affects them in more benign ways. And it requires only an emotional trauma or instability for it to be taken. While it may not make the spiritually enlightened do harm to others, they would do harm to themselves by "lowering their vibration", because to be involved in the game, the person has to accept the violence to a certain extent -- otherwise they would be unable to play the game. After they stop playing, it would take them time and effort to repair the damage to themselves. And depending on the amount of involvement of the person, a critical mass of violence may actually turn the person into a violent one. It's irrelevant if it's Thao or not. Thao would simply have to play violent games a lot more to become violent, but doing so she would eventually.

As for the example with the rape, to handle the situation without more negative repercussions, you have to use the best possible way that your judgement and abilities allow you. Whatever your abilities, you may always choose to aim to do the least damage, if any, to the person in stopping him from the horrible violent act. Perhaps you can find a way to stop the rapist with appropriate words and voice tone? Have you heard that nonviolence requires courage? It's not just lack of violence. You seem to think that non-violence is meek or inefficient in cases requiring immediate action.
Of course, sometimes you do have to harm the other to stop them, that cannot be denied. Sometimes you DO have to also use lethal violence. But one must then use one's judgement, too, and use violent force only as much as is necessitated by the laws of Nature. In that case, violence would not be violence because it would not go against the design of Nature. For example, can we say that animals are violent to prey on other animals? No. Thao killed the people not because they were like savage beasts, she killed them to do them a favour according to Universal Law. She may have made them see their bats like live snakes coiling around their hands, and thus flee in horror. You don't have to be more violent than the situation requires, and the more spiritually advanced you are, the more non-violent approaches you will have at your disposal which will apply to the situation better than the violent ones. If you are into violent games, it is likely that you are inclined not to assess the situation and automatically use violence for violence's sake.

[Lachie]

Thanks for your responses. I both agree and disagree with your points. There is no excuse for games like Manhunt, whose point is entirely about senseless violence. However, the point i'm trying to get across is that violence is needed in a world such as this - and that suffering can be amplified without a carefully measured dose of violent action that could pre-empt any kind of suffering.

I agree with you that violent media should not be overconsumed. I have had problems with that in the past, and I think it is something that everyone should watch out for.

A good idea is the spiritually sane solution of martial arts.

Lachie

[Meedan]

Lachie, I agree with Meedan.

Why does it always sound - in my head - like people are ashamed to agree with me?

Thanks for your responses. I both agree and disagree with your points. There is no excuse for games like Manhunt, whose point is entirely about senseless violence. However, the point i'm trying to get across is that violence is needed in a world such as this - and that suffering can be amplified without a carefully measured dose of violent action that could pre-empt any kind of suffering.

I agree that there are times when violence may be necessary. But that in no way justifies playing violent video games. Does this mean that since violence is needed in this world, we should learn to like it, by playing these games?

I'm not saying that violent media should not be overconsumed, I'm saying it should not be consumed at all .

[Vesko]

Meedan, note that it sounds in YOUR head

[Yothu]

This world was not designed for non-violence; it was designed for enlightened violence, as proven by Thao in attacking and killing those creatures with which reason was impossible.

Thao killed the people not because they were like savage beasts, she killed them to do them a favour according to Universal Law. She may have made them see their bats like live snakes coiling around their hands, and thus flee in horror.

I like these 3 sentences very much. I agree with Lachie that martial arts is a sane solution. Martial artists have a 'codex' that allows them to defend themselves but forbids to use their knowledge for aggression.
I agree that Thao killed those cave men according to Universal Law, but can only speculate what Thao had done if they'd have encountered those beings outside the parallel universe of earth. Perhaps she would have done like Vesko suggested? Highly likely. What do you think?