Archive for the ‘MMOFUD’ Category
Posted by Stropp on
June 19, 2009
Has anyone proven that there is really a link between violent games and real-world violent or antisocial behaviour?
Over at
Game Politics there is a post about the most recent study that supposedly proves this link. The article talks about how a researcher from a Texan university is disputing the results due to the use of poor research methods.
And this is the crux of the matter. It seems every one of these studies (that I've read about) has used methods that either bear no relationship to the way things work in the real world, or are designed to achieve a desired result. This latest study seems to do the former, but there are many studies out there, commissioned by so called family groups or others with some form of social agenda, that use completely suspect means of gathering and analysing the data.
You would think that if such a correlation between violent games and real-world behaviour actually existed, the researchers wouldn't have to use unreliable and disreputable methods, and as a consequence there would be a ton of irrefutable studies out there.
So where are they?
Posted by Stropp on
April 8, 2009
I've wondered a few times over the years, both to myself and in guild chat, why we MMORPG players haven't drawn the ire of the environmental and animal rights groups. At last we have!
Over the last couple of months, the animal rights group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) -- I belong to the other PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) -- have been getting thier knickers in a twist about the treatment of animals in certain games. PETAs last hissy fit was over the requirement for players to kill viscious attack dogs in one of the World War Two games, Call of Duty I think.
Well, MMORPG players have been involved in the wholesale slaughter of pixelated fauna for some time now. If it's not killing ten rats in WoW, it's the bloodthirsty animal carnage of Lord of the Rings Online -- Won't somebody please think of the bears!
PETA have been going on about how these games have been desensitising us to our animal friends, causing us to become potential real world animal killers. I can see it now. Hordes of young game addicts violently running around zoos and animal rescue shelters with all sorts of horrid weapons causing unimaginable carnage and racking up experience and levels by the dozen.
I digress.
Anyway, PETA has been targeting mostly single player games, but now it has set its sights on World of Warcraft according to
Ten Ton Hammer and
PETAs own blog.
Apparently there is a quest in Howling Fjord in Northrend where players have to kill baby seals. This has understandably outraged PETA, especially since (unlike the real world) there is an infinite supply of respawning baby pixels, errr... I mean seals. This cruelty will know no end.
So PETA has organised a protest this coming Easter weekend to confront players taking part in this gruesome activity. I'm not sure how they'll manage it since most players able to get to Howling Fjord -- you have to be level 70 -- will be long time players who have slaughtered many baby animals to get there in the first place. They simply won't care. Looks like PETA will have to get their protestors from 1 to 70 in the next four days.
Unfortunately, they haven't chosen to protest on a PvP server so harrassed players will not be able to retaliate. They'll just have to put them on ignore instead.
**Note: Stropp in no way endorses the cruel treatment of animals in the real world, and despises the annual whale and seal hunts. He thinks you are lower than scum if you mistreat animals. He also thinks that PETA ought to be focussing on animal cruelty in the real world rather than in a game. IT'S JUST A GAME PEOPLE!
Posted by Stropp on
February 28, 2009
I just saw this press release from the European Parliament. Apparently the intelligentsia of the European political elite want all game consoles, computers, and other game devices to be fitted with a "Red Button." This is so parents can intervene in their children's gaming activities to quickly disable a game if they see inappropriate content.
/em forehead-slap
Seriously. Where do they get these people? Does become a member of parliament require having five sixths of the brain removed? Or is there training involved in becoming this stupid?
First of all, Mr Politician, the console, computer, or other gaming devices that you speak of already have a button that can quickly disable the game. It's called A POWER SWITCH. It may not actually be red, but perhaps you can mandate that all new gaming devices can paint their on/off switches red. Will that do it for you? Perhaps you can deliver small tins of red acrylic paint to all households in Europe to allow parents to paint their own power switches. Could help.
Next, do you seriously want to include an additional Red Button on all computers? Even those used by business? Not everyone plays computer games, the poor misguided fools, so where is the sense in adding the additional expense of design, development, and QA to the average PC. Money is tight these days... you know?
Finally. What make you think that the average parent will even use this big Red Button, let alone even care that little Johnny is playing a virtual killer? Parents already have everything they need to know for how to choose what their little darlings can read, view, or play. There are reviews, voluntary ratings, even word of mouth. People these days don't live in isolation from the world around them.
The fact that a lot of parents don't care if their eight year old is playing GTA IV, killing hookers, and drinking Hot Coffee means that any attempt to make it easier to shut this down, is doomed to fail.
The parents that do care, are already using the power switch to control their child's gaming. There's no need for any more hoops.
Posted by Stropp on
February 3, 2009
From Game Politics: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/02/02/pachter-mmo-gamers-are-addicts
Game Politics is reporting that financial analyst Michael Pachter has stereotyped MMO players as addicts. From the Reuters article:
"I don't think (online multiplayer games) get impacted at all, because people who play them are addicts," said Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Morgan. "Losing their jobs makes them more likely to play because they have more time to play."
To be fair, Pachter was suggesting that MMOG's are more likely to weather the current financial crisis because the people who play them are addicts, and that losing a job is more likely to give a player more time in the game.
Come on Michael, your prejudice is showing here a little don’t you think?
The first thing to say; Yep, there are some MMOG players who are ‘addicts’ (even though I don’t agree with that term, but that’s another post.) These players have trouble putting the game away for real life issues like jobs and relationships. They are however, in the minority. Most players live perfectly normal lives and are about addicted to MMOG's as Petrol-Heads are to their hotted up cars, or dog fanciers are to showing their dogs.
To generalize all MMOG players as addicts is about the same as saying that all Financial Analysts are irresponsible idiots for getting the world into such dire financial condition. I’m sure there are four or five Financial Analysts who had nothing to do with the current Financial Crisis.
Perhaps the reason that MMO Games will survive the Financial Crisis, and I’m betting that a few of them won’t anyway, is that they provide incredibly cheap entertainment. Fifteen US dollars a month for a subscription MMOG works out to about fifty cents a day. Go to the movies or rent a DVD a few times a month, and you’ll exceed the cost of a MMOG easily. Try going out to dinner for fifteen quid. Unless it’s Macca’s, you’ll probably be hit up for twice the subscription fee.
Free to play MMOG's fit even better into a tight budget, unless you go overboard buying all the micro-transaction stuff of course. A F2P costs only as much as you want it to cost. Of course you might have some restrictions on places you can go in-game with that sort of model, but it’s still your choice to pay or not. Choice is nice.
Along with being cheap, these games are also social. Unless a player completely ignores the other players in a MMOG, they are going to have some interaction. And even if they do ignore the others around them, they are still in a social situation. Sort of like standing around in a crowded place, there’s activity all around. There’s the opportunity to interact with other human beings. Perhaps it not a traditional human interaction, but it’s interaction nonetheless.
So rather than acknowledging the unique aspect of these games, cheap social entertainment, Pachter simply states that it’s addicted players and not the games themselves that will see the developers through the crisis.
Way to stereotype Michael.
Posted by Stropp on
April 16, 2008
Don't ya just love the expression 'Watchdog Group?'
It has the connotation of a group that looks out for the community, to protect it from invading nasty things. In reality, most of the time these days, it's referring to a group of busybodies who want to control their own environment by exercising power over others who don't think the same way they do.
Morality in Media is just such a Watchdog Group. It's their mission to watch media and make sure it's all nice and clean for the rest of us. But there's this pesky thing called a Constitution that is making it hard for them to keep all that nasty media out of our innocent and naive hands.
Game Politics is reporting that Morality in Media is using the first anniversary of the Virginia Tech tragedy to blame the massacre on the perpetrator's use of violent media -- btw, didn't the violent game link get disproved mere days after the event?
The press release from MiM essentially blamed modern media's (as opposed to medieval media I guess) blind adherence to modernistic (as opposed to anachronistic) Supreme Court decisions that have made it impossible to hold entertainment companies responsible for the effects of their violent media.
I guess these are the same decisions that refuse to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the misuse of their products as well.
Personally, I hold the person who does the crime responsible for his actions, not the guy who made the gun, or the alcohol, or the video game.
I like the US Constitution. It's one of those great little documents that limits the governments power over the individual. The government can't tell you what you can or cannot say or think, as long as it's truthful. If the government can't stop you thinking or speaking for yourself, neither can any other group like Morality in Media.
And they don't like that.
I reckon it's great that Morality in Media can use the same provisions in the constitution that protect the free expression of game developers and other media producers to say what they like. The First Amendment allows game developers to express themselves through their games. Fortunately for Morality in Media, the First Amendment exists, or they might not be allowed to have their say either.
Fortunately for us, the First Amendment exists, or watchdog groups like Morality in Media would be free to censor us as much as they'd like.
Someone, anyone, please save us from watchdog groups.
Posted by Stropp on
January 31, 2008
A couple of days ago I posted the story, Activist Gamers are Massively Effective. It covered the reaction of the gamer community to the beat up by Fox News on Mass Effect. Fox managed to find an author who hadn't played Mass Effect but had heard bad things about it, and got her to denounce the game publicly.
This had the effect of annoyed gamers heading to Amazon and voting her latest book all the way down. Ah, much fun and hilarity ensued. The author, Cooper Lawrence, then retracted her Fox News statements, saying that now she had seen the game, and any sex in it was no big deal.
Why the recap?
Ten Ton Hammer have linked to a web site called Loading Ready Run. These guys spend their spare time making videos, and have just released their own commentary on their site in the form of video satire. The video is called Max Effect, and it's well worth watching.
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson.
"It's funny because it's true."
Posted by Stropp on
January 9, 2008
I just saw a news item up on Blues News that has given me a little chuckle. This article from the MCVUK website reports on the latest comments from the head of MacDonalds UK.
To quote:
Steve Easterbrook told The Times that the food and drinks industry shared responsibility for the issue with individuals and Government.
But he made special mention of the popularity of games – and said they have reduced the amount of time young people spend outdoors “burning off energy”.
And he's right. To an extent.
But you know what?
Back a few years ago, there were the same comments about TV reducing outside activity and causing obesity. Now it appears games are the culprit.
MacDonalds advertises during children's television viewing hours. MacDonalds attempts to convince parents that they are healthy. And a few years ago they had the stated aim of having a MacDonalds store in EVERY Australian suburb. (I don't know if that is still the case.)
Hey Pot... meet Kettle.
Sure if you game all day and all night and never get any exercise; that's bad for you. The human body needs at least 30 minutes of cardio exercise every day. But don't forget, eating Maccas one or twice a week is also bad for you. Buns loaded with sugar to increase appetite so you'll buy more food. Salt in the soda to keep you thirsty so you'll buy more drink. Fries that are deeeeep fried and loaded with preservatives. Nasty stuff indeed.
But. When all is said and done. Who bears responsibility for childhood obesity; Who should be limiting the intake of junk food; and who should be making sure their kids don't spend all day in front of the computer, xbox, or television?
I don't believe it's Steve Easterbrook's responsibility. I don't believe it's Blizzards responsibility.
Maybe it's the parents.
Posted by Stropp on
December 11, 2007
Sometimes it's easy to get me wound up.
I was just minding my business, browsing online and came across a
Fox News article referenced by
MMORPG.com that despite the softish title
Online Game Meetings Sometimes End Tragically,
but Phenomenon Remains Rare, is pretty hardline anti game.
After softening the reader up with a short list of neer-do-wells, who also just happen to play MMOGs, in the opening paragraphs of the article, we are given the following paragraph.
Massively multiplayer online games — or MMOGs, as they're called — can foster more vulnerability than there might be on other virtual meeting spaces such as dating and social networking sites, where participants are inclined to be on the lookout for suspicious behavior from the start.
Here we see that Fox News is suggesting that Massively Multiplayer Online Games are more vulnerable to online predatory behaviour than dating sites or social networks. Social networks like Myspace perhaps. Funny. I seem to remember a whole slew of news stories over the last few years about how Myspace was a haven for pedophiles and cyberstalkers. Aside from a mention about that poor girl who suicided after being cyber stalked by an adult neighbour on Myspace, there wasn't terribly much in this article on the Myspace pedophile connection.
Hmmm. Isn't Myspace owned by News Corporation? And doesn't News Corporation own Fox News?
Must be just a coincidence.
As an aside: You know I read so often the laments by critics of the new media, which includes blogs and other forms of citizen journalism, that it isn't valid because of it's inherent biases. These critics include mainstream journalists who work for organisations like Fox News. Even though there is truth in these criticisms, in light of this Fox News article, I'd recommend that these self appointed guardians of journalistic integrity take a good long hard look at themselves and their 'old media' industries. Maybe they should get their own houses in order before they point their fingers at others faults.
Of course there are some quotes from the usual 'concerned citizens group'. In this case the group is called WHOA. It's one of these wonderful acronyms where the acronym is created before the wording, and means Working to Halt Online Abuse. It could just as easily mean Whinging to Harm Others Activities.
WHOA is headed by someone who was a victim of cyber-stalking. Without attempting to minimise the harm that real cyber-stalking does, it's clear that anyone who had been the victim of some form of crime or assault begins to see that offence happening everywhere. Even when it isn't, or is only happening minimally. I feel bad for people who are victims of crime, noone deserves to be a victim. It's often traumatic, but doesn't really make for a clear perspective on the issues.
Another quote from the article from a University of Baltimore Criminologist:
Still, the majority of close encounters of the gaming kind don't end badly, according to criminologists.
"The issue of suicide and murder is an anomaly," Ross said. "Yes, there are people on these games who have evil intent. ... But it's highly unusual. That's what makes it so fascinating."
So... there's this whole article talking about how much worse MMOGs are than social networks, yet it's highly unusual for real evil deeds to occur.
Maybe that's because we online gamers actually know there are bad guys in the games we play. Have you ever been ganked, ninja'd, or otherwise griefed by another player?
Has your account been hacked and had all your gear sold off, or have you known it to happen to another player?
Have you ever really read the official forums?
It's pretty easy to tell there are jerks online. Maybe. Just maybe, online games are safer than social networks like Myspace because they show you the real nature of people early and often. Maybe doing an instance or running a raid with the same people week after week gives you a little insight into their character. A persons true colours usually come out under stress, and there's not a lot more stressful to some players than a high level raid going wrong.
It's actually pretty obvious that some of the so called experts quoted in this article haven't ever spent a substantial amount of time playing these games and interacting with other players.
Articles like this Fox News article love to pull facts out of their backsides in order to spread a little fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Make people afraid, it's how the modern news media operates. If people are scared they come back and that gives higher ratings or whatever. The fact that the FUD is about games is a bonus.
In anycase, it's why I've given up watching the nightly news. If I want opinion, I'll read a blog. At least blogs are generally honest about their commentary being opinion.
Now having worked myself up, I'll wipe the foam from my mouth and quickly look at the other side of the equation.
There are bad people in the world. In fact there are very bad people in the world. So bad in fact, that their activities cross the border into criminal.
There are doctors, lawyers, politicians, dentists, computer programmers, kindergarten teachers, school crossing guards, and people in every other occupation under the sun, whom if you really knew you'd cross the street if you saw them coming. In some cases you'd run screaming from the area. Some of these bad people play Massively Multiplayer Online Games. Some set up profiles on Myspace.
The fact is everywhere you go, you may run into someone who doesn't have your welfare in mind. That's life. It's been the way of things since the dawn of time, which I think was a few years before the invention of the internet.
The key is to be careful and use common sense in all our relationships.
Does that make sense?
