Bank wrote Never really thought about this but I suppose if you're playing a VR game and lets say you lash out, like a reaction and hit some then yeah i guess so.
However, can it increases aggression while you're on the streets or not playing the VR game, then I highly doubt it.

So would you say that virtual reality games might have a short-term effect on aggression or criminal behaviour (i.e. they might immediately become physical or swear), but not long enough to effect their behaviour or views in general?

Skates wrote If parents monitored their kids and raised them right this wouldn't even be a theory.
I've played all gtas and all cods, I've never got a ridiculous urge to go and cause terror or whatever because I'm not fcking mental.

Would you say, then, that the violence in games csn effect individuals more if they have a lack of mental understanding or 'proper' upbringing.

Also, what about non-violent (but still aggressive or illegal) responses?

tombehere wrote

Bank wrote Never really thought about this but I suppose if you're playing a VR game and lets say you lash out, like a reaction and hit some then yeah i guess so.
However, can it increases aggression while you're on the streets or not playing the VR game, then I highly doubt it.

So would you say that virtual reality games might have a short-term effect on aggression or criminal behaviour (i.e. they might immediately become physical or swear), but not long enough to effect their behaviour or views in general?

I'd agree with you there on the short time effects, like how many times as gamers and believe me we've all done it. Been playing a game at some point or another and the outcome hasn't been that great that we've let a swear word just slip out. As got aggression/violence, I think that'll just depend on the player but as you said I personally don't think it would have an effect on their behaviour in general.

tombehere wrote

Ahab wrote

I'm hesitant to put any kind of opinion down on this because there simply hasn't been enough study on VR.

VR is more realistic but I don't think it's so realistic that it would have much more of an effect on violent and anti-social behaviour than regular video games.
The amount of people affected negatively would rise but it wouldn't be a rise by an order of magnitude which would be that noticeable or worrying.

But that's just my general feeling around it and not based on anything other than what I have witnessed with people gaming.

Agreed, there is very little research on this. This is why I have chosen to do some research of my own.

There has, though, been some very interesting research into "immerse controllers" and emotive responses - which did find a correlation between increased immersion and emotive response.

So, hypothetically you believe the increased immersion could increase negative response, but only by an insignificant amount? On the flip side, do you think more people would be positively effected by games that have underlying positive messages?

Or would most positive messages be missed amongst most violent games?

To the first question, yes.

To the second I would say yes. With VR more people are going to see the underlying messages because it will be much more immersive by definition.
But I don't think that it means much more. I think that, once again, it means an insignificant number more.

SakiJr wrote It all comes down to the person playing it, I remember when parents would get mad if their kid played CoD because they would think shooting people is a normal thing when in reality they just play for fun and wont actually shoot people, take me for instance, I love violent games with shooting etc but i'd never do anything that they do in games

Do you have any thought on non-violent (but still aggressive or illegal) responses to games?

Also, what about responses to adults, or responses to virtual reality?

Ahab wrote

To the first question, yes.

To the second I would say yes. With VR more people are going to see the underlying messages because it will be much more immersive by definition.
But I don't think that it means much more. I think that, once again, it means an insignificant number more.

Sounds like you think the supposed increased immersion of virtual reality will have little effect on increasing aggression and crime?

What about varying aspects of violent games (as I have put in the survey). For instance, would an increase in gore effect an individual more than an increase in shooting a gun?

tombehere wrote

Ahab wrote

To the first question, yes.

To the second I would say yes. With VR more people are going to see the underlying messages because it will be much more immersive by definition.
But I don't think that it means much more. I think that, once again, it means an insignificant number more.

Sounds like you think the supposed increased immersion of virtual reality will have little effect on increasing aggression and crime?

What about varying aspects of violent games (as I have put in the survey). For instance, would an increase in gore effect an individual more than an increase in shooting a gun?

This applies to pretty much everything in gaming.

You can't do something until you know what it is and how you could conceivably do it. You didn't know that banks could be robbed until you saw your first bank robbery movie or robbed a bank in a game. Your exposure to the information that you could rob a bank makes you more likely to rob a bank. Just like your exposure to the information and methods by which you could kill a person makes you more likely to kill someone than if you didn't know this information.

Video games increase the likelihood of you doing everything in the game in real life. I have no doubt that free running groups have been started because people played the Assassin's Creed games, for example.

But this increase, to me, seems minuscule. Every aspect compounds on top of the others. If you have a game where you shoot someone and they fall over that is one level of realism and immersion. A game where blood shoots out of the back of that person against a wall is another level of realism added on top. Another game where if you shoot someone in the hand and their hand flies to pieces in a gory mess is another level of realism.

A gory game like Outlast probably has less of an effect on negative behaviour than a gory game where you create the gore with a weapon simply because the player is the one creating the gore. It is more immersive and it's like you are being given permission to destroy someone's body.

But in my eyes if we were to put this 0-10 scale of increase in violence all of these things would be below 1 and fractions apart from one another even when we scale up the immersion to VR.

tombehere wrote

3PT wrote I actually wrote a 1500 word research paper about this for my composition class lol. I'll sum it up briefly.

Thanks for posting that summary! Just wondering though, what about virtual reality and non-violent (buy still negative) responses. Also, I know that your summary was based mainly on children playing games, but what about adults?

For instance (and this is an extreme example) Norwegian terrorist Breivik admitted to using video games as training for target acquisition with guns.

Obviously the game did not cause his violence, but surely training the violence is just as bad.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a gamer myself, I just find this topic very interesting

The focus was on if video games caused violence in general, not just in children. As I stated previously, it is illogical to claim that video games can act as training as they cannot perfectly replicate real life situations and circumstances. In the case of the Norewegian terrorist, he likely had some training with REAL firearms. There are millions of people who play violent games and don't become mass murderers.

3PT wrote

tombehere wrote

3PT wrote I actually wrote a 1500 word research paper about this for my composition class lol. I'll sum it up briefly.

Thanks for posting that summary! Just wondering though, what about virtual reality and non-violent (buy still negative) responses. Also, I know that your summary was based mainly on children playing games, but what about adults?

For instance (and this is an extreme example) Norwegian terrorist Breivik admitted to using video games as training for target acquisition with guns.

Obviously the game did not cause his violence, but surely training the violence is just as bad.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a gamer myself, I just find this topic very interesting

The focus was on if video games caused violence in general, not just in children. As I stated previously, it is illogical to claim that video games can act as training as they cannot perfectly replicate real life situations and circumstances. In the case of the Norewegian terrorist, he likely had some training with REAL firearms. There are millions of people who play violent games and don't become mass murderers.

What about non-violentry responses?

And apologies, but talking about ESRB and upbringing made me think there was a focus on children. Nonetheless, do you think the effect between children and adults is the same, or less?

Indeed he did have training with firearms, but also stated himself that he used video games to help target acquisition - something that his limited firearms training could not help. Even if they cannot act as entire training, they can help in some aspects.

There are millions who play but don't become criminals, you are right. But it could be argued that this is still a risk factor of increasing aggression. In the same way that not everyone with psycological issues become criminals, but it is a risk factor.

The point if this study is to see if the increased immersion from virtual reality could increase gaming asca theoretical risk factor more so than 'regular' gaming.

So what do you think about virtual reality?