The Modern Warfare 2 Controversy

[Tero]

It's just a high tech way of playing cops & robbers or cowboys & indians. Or how about old school, greeks & trojans.

Where is the fun in playing cops and unruly kids.

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/arkansas-cop-taser-10yearold-girl/

How clueless are parents these days when they can not get a 10-year old to take a shower without police assistance ?

EDIT: the Finnish report did not specify the parents are separated.

[Tero]

By dieseltaylor

http://www.media-awareness.ca/englis...a_violence.cfm

Redirect:

In 1956, researchers took to the laboratory to compare the behaviour of 24 children watching TV. Half watched a violent episode of the cartoon Woody Woodpecker, and the other 12 watched the non-violent cartoon The Little Red Hen. During play afterwards, the researchers observed that the children who watched the violent cartoon were much more likely to hit other children and break toys.

Drawing your attention to this section: How did the test subjects play before watching the shows ? How much had the test subjects been subjected to media violence before the test ? How representative was the subject group to draw widespread conclusions ? What was the demographics of the group (girls watched Hen, boys watched Woodpecker or mixed groups) ? How well aquainted were the subjects in the respective groups ?

[Sgt Joch]

There is still no conclusive data which shows a direct link between playing violent video games and being violent in real life. Here is just one example:

http://www.csun.edu/japanese/papers/10_games.html

[dieseltaylor]

United States Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants

Year -------------------------------- 1960---------------2008

Population --------------------- 179m ------------ 366m

Total Crime --------------------1887.2-------- 3667.0

Violent ------------------------------160.9---------- 454.5

Property --------------------------1726.3 ------- 3212.5

Murder------------------------------------ 5.1---------------5.4

Forcible Rape----------------------- 9.6----------- 29.3

Robbery --------------------------------60.1-------- -145.3

Agg. assault ------------------------86.1 -------- 274.6

Burglary----------------------------- 508.6 ----------730.8

Theft -------------------------------- 1034.7------- 2167.0

V.Theft ------------------------------ 183.0 --------- 314.7

And perhaps if I choose the dates I can get something interesting - these dates are the earliest and latest from the DoJ. The graphs you show make me think we are seeing a population bubble getting older however even that appears to be warped by the graph as apparently a murder rate of 9 per 100000 given by the DoJ is carried out by 70 plus people per 100000? What gives? The adjusted violence figures also seems at odds with the figures from here:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

- but I prefer to look at the figures I have above.

Also I did not blame video games exclusively which seems to be the implication you are pinning on me. And the direct link defence seems to be a]the tobacco industry defence, b] to ignore all the 3500 odd studies that show that violence does affect behaviour.

[Sgt Joch]

Also I did not blame video games exclusively which seems to be the implication you are pinning on me. And the direct link defence seems to be a]the tobacco industry defence, b] to ignore all the 3500 odd studies that show that violence does affect behaviour.

DT, my comments were not aimed at you personally. There are many studies which have been made, some show a link between media violence and violent behavior, some do not. In all the studies, at least the ones I glanced at, you can find flaws in the methodology or the interpretation of the data.

Its not like we are discussing whether smoking causes cancer or whether global warming is man-made. The link between media violence and real life violence has not been proved conclusively to my taste.

again, just one example at random:

One of the most common criticisms of video games are that they allegedly increase violent tendencies among youth.[7] [8] [9] However, several major studies by groups such as The Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health, The Journal of Adolescent Health, and The British Medical Journal have shown no conclusive link between video game usage and violent activity."[10][11][12] One study did find an increase in reports of bullying, noting, "Our research found that certain patterns of video game play were much more likely to be associated with these types of behavioral problems than with major violent crime such as school shootings[10][11]. One of the first widely accepted controversial video games was developer Exidy's 1976 title Death Race, in which players controlled cars that ran over pixelated representations of "gremlins". The game caused such an outcry that it was pulled from store shelves and profiled on 60 Minutes. Long Island PTA president Ronnie Lamm pushed for legislation in the early 1980s to place restrictions on how close video game arcades could be to schools, asserting that they caused children to fight.[13] Portrayals of violence allegedly became more realistic with time, and so politicians such as U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman conducted hearings during the 1990s regarding what he referred to as "violent video games" which, in his opinion, included such games as Mortal Kombat. His sentiments have been echoed by certain researchers, such as Dr. Craig A. Anderson who testified before the Senate, "Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques [it shows that] violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased pro-social (helping) behavior."[14] Anderson himself was later criticized in a 2005 video game court case for failing to cite research that differed from his view.[15] Much of the research has been criticized for overstating effects, ignoring negative results and using unstandardized and unreliable measures of aggression.[

or

Over two hundred studies have been published which examine the effects of violence in entertainment media and which at least partially focus on violence in video games in particular. Some psychological studies[31] have shown a correlation between children playing violent video games and suffering psychological effects, though the vast majority stop short of claiming behavioral causation.

The American Psychological Association summarizes the issue as "Psychological research confirms that violent video games can increase children's aggression, but that parents moderate the negative effects."[32] Craig A. Anderson has testified before the U.S. Senate on the issue, and his meta-analysis of these studies has shown five consistent effects: "increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased pro-social (helping) behavior".[33] Nevertheless, some studies explicitly deny that such a connection exists, most notably Anderson and Ford (1986), Winkel et al. (1987), Scott (1995), Ballard and Lineberger (1999), and Jonathan Freedman (2002).[34] More recently, Block and Crain (2007) claim that in a critical paper by Anderson (and his co-author, Bushman), data was improperly calculated and produced fallacious results.[35]

After conducting a two-year study of more than 1,200 middle-school children about their attitudes towards video games, Harvard Medical School researchers Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson found that playing video games did not have a particularly negative effect on the researched group.[

from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy

yes, its wikipedia, so you have to take it with a grain of salt.

[Boeman]

Activision claims Infinity Ward's latest shooter breaks host of 24-, 120-hour entertainment records spanning games, movies, books; LA Times pegs budget at $200 million including marketing and distribution.

Taking into consideration just North America and the UK, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's launch could be considered a resounding success. Two days after Infinity Ward's modern military shooter's November 10 launch on the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC, Activision said that the game had sold 4.7 million units in the two aforementioned territories in 24 hours, generating revenue in the neighborhood of $310 million.

Modern Warfare 2 brought in more than half a billion dollars within a week.

Today, Activision returned to provide more blockbuster Modern Warfare 2 sales statistics. According to the publisher's internal estimates, Modern Warfare 2 generated $550 million during its first five days on the market, a figure that sets a new entertainment record for the period. Activision did not provide a unit-sales update, however, and had not responded to requests for clarification as of press time.

The publisher did make claim to a variety of first- and five-day entertainment records spanning movies, books, and games. Beginning with the most direct comparison, Activision claims Modern Warfare 2 bested Grand Theft Auto IV's first-day worldwide game sales records of 3.6 million units and $310 million. The game also apparently busted GTAIV's five-day global haul of 6 million units on $500 million of gross revenue.

As for other media, Activision said that Modern Warfare 2 broke Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince's five-day global box-office record of $394 million. The game also eclipsed The Dark Knight's first- and five-day domestic theatrical opening, which stood at $66.4 million and $203.8 million, respectively. Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows' first-day book sales record of $220 million was also surpassed.

In terms of usage, Activision said that more than 5.2 million hours of multiplayer matches were played through Xbox Live on November 10. The publisher also noted Xbox Live's new concurrent user record of 2.2 million following Modern Warfare 2's launch, before saying that some 11 million achievements were earned within 24 hours.

[uPDATE] According to the Los Angeles Times, Modern Warfare 2's success didn't come cheap. The paper reports that the game had a budget between $40 million and $50 million before the cost of worldwide marketing, disc production, and distribution to retailers. Once those costs and the royalties paid to Microsoft and Sony are factored in, the game's final overall budget is estimated at around $200 million. The figure means that Activision spent far more producing, distributing, and marketing Modern Warfare 2 as it did developing it.

It certainly looks as though the bad press has actually helped Activision here.

If anything, it's yet more proof that far from being shunned by the consumer, the appetite for violent games by gamers has become even more voracious.

I will say, however, that it is a good possibility that many of those purchases were made by would-be tournament players. Rather than blood and gore, it is the need for mastering the multi-player aspects of the game which is driving sales. The supposition is that the quicker you can get your hands on a popular game, the greater the period of time you'll have to practice for online competitions.

PC gamers, on the other hand, seem to be less than ethusiastic with Infanity Ward's offering; many of whom cite the lack of dedicated servers and the ability to easily modify the title as being an utter disappointment.

[dieseltaylor]

After conducting a two-year study of more than 1,200 middle-school children about their attitudes towards video games, Harvard Medical School researchers Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson found that playing video games did not have a particularly negative effect on the researched group.

Nice but does one see the word violent anywhere?

I back a 3500 survey of the media influences in general against a few ambivalent surveys which are ambivalent AS IT CANNOT BE proved. The tobacco defence.

TERO

Drawing your attention to this section: How did the test subjects play before watching the shows ? How much had the test subjects been subjected to media violence before the test ? How representative was the subject group to draw widespread conclusions ? What was the demographics of the group (girls watched Hen, boys watched Woodpecker or mixed groups) ? How well aquainted were the subjects in the respective groups ?

Without seeing the survey I cannot say conclusively however if the study was not to be laughed out of court it had to be properly constructed. I would imagine that in fact the two groups were swopped on different days so there behaviour was logged against each other. But I am guessing. However you can imagine on a steady diet of violence as a solution then it may well become more and more ingrained.

As for moderation by parents - rather depends if they are first or second generation exposed to violent media themselves. Desensitisation generationally has to be considered also.

[Tero]

By dieseltaylor

Without seeing the survey I cannot say conclusively however if the study was not to be laughed out of court it had to be properly constructed.

How many who quote the study actually have seen it and/or replicated it ? That is IMO the problem. We are fed all kinds of stats backed up by references to supposedly reputable studies.

I would imagine that in fact the two groups were swopped on different days so there behaviour was logged against each other.

That would indeed be the case if the study was done properly. However, since you (and others) have to imagine how the study was conducted and ALL the pertinent background info is in place and in order there really is no way to ascertain if the findings reported are really a) what they studied and what the findings mean. Purpose driven studies are ripe with all kinds of presupposed criteria.

But I am guessing. However you can imagine on a steady diet of violence as a solution then it may will become more and more ingrained.

Could be. Then again how the diet affects is really dependant on the subjects psychological make up. Otherwise we would have more teenagers running around killing people.

As for moderation by parents - rather depends if they are first or second generation exposed to violent media themselves. Desensitisation generationally has to be considered also.

Then again it may just be that all kinds of alarmist crap is being floated around just to make people be more dependent on authorities instead of trusting their own judgement.

[costard]

Then again it may just be that all kinds of alarmist crap is being floated around just to make people be more dependent on authorities instead of trusting their own judgement.

Occam's razor strikes again. Nice one.

Without seeing the survey I cannot say conclusively however if the study was not to be laughed out of court it had to be properly constructed.

diesel, read "Galileo's revenge: junk science in the courtroom." by Peter W Huber. It has a look at some decisions made in court on the basis of stunningly bad science.

[dieseltaylor]

Bad Science!

http://www.badscience.net/

I even have the book! : )

I think the study was as it is laid out was very simple, it would be hard to imagine any skullduggery with such a simple experiment. And with all tests reported in a respectable journal they would be examined for flaws.

Then again it may just be that all kinds of alarmist crap is being floated around just to make people be more dependent on authorities instead of trusting their own judgement.

I really don't see that the state is kicking back at violence given the growth in violence in the media over the last few decades. Of course there are exceptions like the Nordic countries but in WASP land business sets the agenda and only eventually will the Govt think perhaps there is a problem to be addressed.

iPod - no decibel control

mobile phones - not proscribed from car use

huge sound systems in car -

lack of planning on strategic services like power -

[Field Marshal Blücher]

mobile phones - not proscribed from car use

Minor correction here:

While not proscribed by the US Federal government, many state governments (at least those of all the states I've lived in lately) do have laws either prohibiting or restricting mobile phone use in cars. So in my experience, I have been effectively prevented from using my cell phone in cars.

I don't know what the case is like in Britain or other "WASP countries," though.

[dieseltaylor]

You will be pleased to know in the UK it was allowed to become a widespread habit before it was legislated against in 2003. That was to introduce hands-free as the legal way - regardless of the fact that the actual conversation and the minutes afterwards reduce peoples performances to those of a drunk driver.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491290/Minister-hypocrisy-MP-fought-tougher-laws-caught-driving-mobile.html

but better than that

Driving without due care and attention carries a maximum fine of £5,000 and up to nine penalty points on a licence. Twelve points can lead to a driving ban.

The proceedings could prove damaging for Harman as she is not only a cabinet minister, but also a QC and a former solicitor general

The CPS's statement said: "The Crown Prosecution Service has decided there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute the Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP for the offences of driving without due care and attention and driving whilst using a handheld mobile telephone in relation to an incident on 3 July 2009.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/20/harman-mobile-phone-driving

Texting whilst driving and talking on the phone both make drivers more dangerous .... who could have possibly foreseen the problems? And I understand that the GPS screen fitted to some cars can also show DVD's ....... so no problem there then.