40 cop cars lined up in anticipation of post-game Lakers riot. None for E3. Now, which games promote violence?

http://twitter.com/ARockLegend/status/16426630347

I'm guessing that you are a Twitter member, because all I can see is the headline that you have already included.

I could sign up to see the rest.


Nah!

There is no rest... That is it, 140 characters is your lot!

No there isn't any more. I thought I should add it as it was not an original thought of mine but that was the link that asked the question.

It does make you think though. The media and government go on about the violence in games yet the police do not think that they need to police such an event. Yet a sports event gets massive police presence to avoid trouble.

There are wordier news articles:

"More than 40 people were arrested following the Los Angeles Lakers game seven win over the Boston Celtics as rowdy revellers burned vehicles, hurled objects at police and broke windows. . . At one point a city transit bus was surrounded by a mob of 500 people before police arrived and broke up the crowd."

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 4J39FQ0wHA

I just wish there were only two continents in the world.

One where we'd put all the unsavoury people.

The other where we'd put the nice people.

Let's see which side develops culturally and scientifically ^_^

They'd be at war all the time, and the meek would probably not inherit the Earth.

Oh, yes. I forgot that bit.

By the way, seeing as how I'm not on Twitter, I'd better let you know that at the moment, I am sitting at my computer.

Would you be surprised if I told you most Twittering is not like that at all?

To take the contrary position for a moment: Football, in either flavour, does not promotesviolence. The violence comes along as a side affect based on primitive tribalism. You do not win a game of football by maiming or killing other players.

Computer games, however, tend to require the player to take on the mantle of a character whose progress is advanced through various tasks, mostly by destroying the environment and or other characters in the game. This teaches the player that the solution to a problem can be found through the use of deadly force.

Until computer games of a more adult persuasionn allow the player to advance in a non militarised with no rewards for the use for aggression and violent acts, it could be argued quite easily that they promote violence and even act as an educational tool in the subject.

I've always thought it would be the geeks who inherited the Earth, briefly, because they'd have more of an idea about how to get things up and running again

I say briefly, because inevitably they'd give anything new a retarded name and prospects, debate it for ages without getting anything done, all while some knuckle dragger became a 'pioneer'

I think games just kind of reflect what we've always done through history, just a bit more fantastical, usually. Same as novels and films in that sense. Yes, even rom-coms

I agree, sports do not promote violence. I don't see mass riots at boxing matches.


No, to someone not predisposed to violence all gaming teaches is that some pixels change when you perform certain actions. You brain is not completely tricked by a computer or TV screen, it realises that it is not true depth perception nor movement.

Variables that may trigger violence in those predisposed can be replaced by other, different, variables. If it's not a sport, a game, a video then it will be something else, perhaps entirely different.

They are not the reason for violence, to believe they are is missing the true cause of violence.

Lies. Football promotes violence. Not only have the supporters been drinking mildly laced cat piss for years with no response from the sponsors, but everyone else simply cannot take the hint that if I hear one more comment about the world cup near me, I will rip their [LIFTED] head off.

[quote="adidan"]I agree, sports do not promote violence. I don't see mass riots at boxing matches.

What about the Roman Gladiators?