Ugh another lecture on something I'm not a fan of in movies particularly......well when it's graphic anyway :) and no I didnt complain :)
The first point was the audience reaction to the violent clip Bill showed to us and during parts people laughed and Bill responded to this the debate that people can become de-sensitized. In other words by seeing violence or being exposed to it a lot people may no longer feel any shock or reaction to what they are viewing and even maybe enjoy it. This could be he result of movies or games etc.
It is very much a double edged sword debate as on the one hand people get enjoyment from these games and playing with their friends, can be used as a stress relief, a safe way to take out anger or just as general gameplay enjoyment. However it can also become a dangerous obsession to some. An example of this that Bill told to us was the Columbine shooting, an incident I have studied during school. A horrific random shooting act influenced by the game doom and the movie natural born killers. The shooter's diaries were found and displayed his obsession with doom and killing and his anger against the world. Out of curiosity I read some of the diaries and was shocked at his pure anger and pure want to kill. Even more interesting was that he kept insisting that it wasnt media, games, his family or anything else that influenced him just himself. He asked that no charges are placed or laws changed as a result of what he does that it wont ever happen again after him....Furthermore he always referred to himself and 'V', a character of some sort he made his plans with. A very disturbing but fascincating read into the mind of the killer.
Oddly despite the criticisms the games have still managed to develop overtime and games that used to be seen as really violent and scary are now laughable in contemporary times! Odd! As someone who has grown up with this graphic level quality in games I can't understand how the games Bill showed us were considered as violent back then, kinda funny really :) I guess they'd really get damn petrified if the people back then saw the games and movies we have now!
An argument against media violence is used in an analogy of cigarette smoking, that the affects are not apparent until later, however this analogy does not take interpretation into consideration. I studied these type of theories also during sociology at college about the effect of the media on society such as the hyperdermic syringe theory(that information is injected into society).
It is also argued that people interpret the media in there own way and react according to that interpretation.
I personally feel that it is a bit of both.....the media is everywhere and always thrown at us and overtime I think we all begin to think in the way that the media imposes on us. Such as fashion trends, popular music etc. However also people are capable of interpreting media messages on there own, people are not mindless (mostly...=P)
Violence is now even parodied such as in cartoons e.g itchy and scratchy of the simpsons aswell as roadrunner which began as a parody but became popular.
Liutenant Grossman(sp?) is a big speaker against video game violence, he argues that techniques used by the American Army to train armies to kill are used in games and the typical hero is diminishing. A hero that dives infront of others to protect them from danger. Which thinking about it is kind of true, the main character are more getting back stories or are rebels etc.
In movies we passively receive information which was seen as really dangerous until games came along which has overtaken this as you are now interact and are doing the violence in the games. The game industry has overtaken the movie industry.
