I’m surprised Plymouth had 9 games shops, let alone more.

Would it surprise you to learny that ‘game shop’ defined every single retail outlet that just happens to peddle computer games, including (but not limited too) supermarkets, stationers and mobile phone shops offering Wii/Xbox/PS3 bundles.

This was a few years ago, but things haven’t really improved:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/3329863.stm

Cllr. Leaves is just a ridiculous rent-a-gob and the Herald share the owners and attitude of the Daily Mail, hence the above.

The fact is that everything experienced, seen, heard and felt has an impact on a developing personality. Every action taken and the observed consequences gets hard coded into the brain to define a ‘moral’ framework. It’s not a question of wether violent games have an impact but rather how much of an impact.

The key point for most of us is that we get a good range of input … sure we may see and experience violence but we also see and experience the range of positive influences ie love, compassion etc and our brains have a great ability to balance the equations.

The problem is, of course, that we are all different. What might be an acceptable level of negative input for one person might be in another the limit that would push them more towards becoming a violent personality.

Politicians are probably the worst offenders obviously as they look to single out one “cause” to blame for political reasons. Yes, it’s a moronic thing to do but that doesnt negate the issue. Take a 12 year old kid playing video games 4 hours a day … of course it has an influence, it would be impossible for it not to have an influence. That’s just the nature of the brain, everything gets absorbed.

But then again, that’s a parent responsability and for the most part goverments should stay the hell out of it ;)

I feel a person who is not capable of attacking an innocent person with a knife will not suddenly be swayed into doing so by playing a violent game; the same way if your morals say its ok to attack innocent people, you will not suddenly change your morals by playing Hello Kitty.

*I’m gonna go out tonight wiv ma mates, drink some cider and punch some kid up*
**Realises little sister has left Hello Kitty on and runs about in the world**
*Aww, such a cute little kitten, why did I have those evil thoughts earlier? How could I possibly want to hurt an innocent person?*

-Disclaimer- I understand my post has various pigeonholes and generalisations. I only use these as a simpler way of expressing my point.-

For example, one study involved a ‘test for aggresion’, first the seemingly obvious flaw – Theres more than one kind of aggression, like the competitive kind seen in sports. Secondly, the test was to get two groups of people together and separate them with a wall, get the first group to play a ‘video game’ (Hate that term) for 15 minutes and the second group don’t. Then give both groups a blow horn and get them to compete against eachother to make the other person jump and apparently the game players holding down the blow horn for 0. something of a second suggests gamers are more aggresive.
Flaw 2 the first 15 minutes of playing a game can be rather frustrating if you’re having to learn a new game and this is going to skew the results somewhat.

Also: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/16/new-study-teens-video-games-amp-civics-mostly-good-news

For as long as we blame the videogaming bogeyman, we’re avoiding what are far more likely to be real issues. Issues more difficult to regulate than age restrictions on boxes. Issues that would involve hard work and money.

Hear, hear!