Wirehead Studios

http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=24433 (http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=24433)

Very sad way to go. If there's a god, I hope for a special place in hell for these parents.

:( It's impressive how these parents were addicted to the game. This couple "is" a case of addiction. They are so addicted that they lost track of their duties as parents! Only a ill person with a 4-months old child could forget that he/she has a baby child. It's unforgiveable.

They probubly didn't 'forget' just thought they'd get away with it. I bet it wasn't the first time they'd left the baby alone for a long time.

When you have small children you do need a break, but the way to do it is to get someone else to sit with the baby.

I would most definitely say that the parents were foolish, but playing a game for merely 5 hours does not mean you're addicted.  I'll quote one of the comments in reply to that article that I think describes my opinion best, "Funny so much emphasis on games when this shit happens all the time for all kinds of other reasons of neglegence"  Unfortunately, nobody will bother to take a look to see if there were past acts of neglegance commited by those parents.

Kain-- I have to agree. This story gets this kind of attention because it was about a game. However this kind of neglect goes on for almost ever reason imaginable. From drugs, to going to the bar, going to see a g/f or b/f, or whatever. And these seem to be the people that can have kids without a thought, and yet ppl that would seem, by most standards, make great parents are unable to have children. I find things like this the most frustrating.

p.s.  If this would be better moved to a different forum area, please do so.

The fact that the article you linked to is titled the way it is, and the fact that you titled this thread as you did, seriously pisses me off.

The game World of Warcraft killed nobody. Two stupid parents who didn't know better than to leave a FOUR-MONTH-OLD CHILD home alone is what killed somebody.

MMORPG's have joined up to make people addicted to them, spending their entire lives making your life theirs. I don't know if I should call the couple criminals, or victims. MMPRPG's radiate this thing called crack out from their evil realm, which captivates their focus on the game rather then real life. Take these games for example.

Ever Crack: the next best thing to the real thing.

World of DrugCraft: Jump on your horse with some killer urb, and ride over curbs, all the live long day.

Star War Fix-alaxies: Jump to Intoxication: Satisfy your fix demands, but the only way to satisfy it is to play constantly.

TV addiction, Internet addiction, video game addiction...  there's one thing missing in all of those discussions, and it's self-control.  Self-discipline.  Keeping one's priorities straight.  The problem is nobody is being taught that anymore, all you hear about is people whining when they don't get their way, whining about their rights, me me me, I want this, who can I sue to get rich, etc, and responsibility goes straight out the window as a result.  This society as a whole has turned into one of instant gratification, so is it any wonder you have some people who neglect their responsibilities in favor of a game?  Kain an Nao are both right, neglect is neglect, regardless of whether it's booze or pixels involved.  Society needs to stop looking for scapegoats and start fixing the problem, but before that can be done people need to start looking in the mirror and understanding that it's up to them to take responsibility for making the right choices instead of walking around in denial, thinking they're completely blameless and that it's always "the other guy's fault".

Washu:  I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not with your post, so I'm reserving comment until I'm more clear on that.

Agreed

Okay Pho it has a little sarcasm in it but also a bit of truth, now I'm not saying that it's the game's fault, it's not, but let me tell you a little something.

I have a friend who has Starwars Galaxies. Ever since he received the game, I have barley done anything with him because all he wants to do is play Starwars, all the time. I have another friend who has taken the same path. I played Starwars Galaxies for a few minutes and I could actually feel myself being sucked in to the fantasy life, I quit immediately, and said, "I have a real life."

These games are good and all (with self-control) but there is daily attention this game requires.
For example Starwars Galaxies. If you buy a house or a vehicle, you have to pay insurance, well first you need the money for insurance, and then you need to do missions for the money, and then pay it.
Oh and I forgot to mention the monthly fee.

I'm not saying that it is the game's fault, like every single freaking "mothers against (place blame subject here)" says it is. People need to learn when to unplug, and be apart of society, not in their fake game soceity.

In my post I was mocking MMORPG's.

Actually no it isn't ... :evil:


Being a parent myself, this really pisses me off. How in the hell can anybody be THAT irresponsible!!! Good God, it got at my conscience just leaving my kids in the house alone for just 2 seconds to run outside to my car. Yes I do believe there is a special place in Hell for people like that.


Oh and Makou,  I think that's pretty much implied. Ease up a bit man.

Indeed.  I find the monthly pay-for-play scheme to be the major factor in how these games operate.  After all, you pay, so you feel if you don't play you're not getting your money's worth.  At the same time, if the games didn't make you feel like you're part of an alternate world, they're not doing their job and thus have no market potential.  I don't like having anything run my life, so I prefer games I can turn on and turn off when I feel like it.  That's just me.

This is a brand new thing, and like any new thing, some people get overly infatuated with it and forget when to stop.  I look at competitive online gaming, where people play hours and hours to practice so they can take top spot on a ladder, and how some people do nothing but play Quake, or Counter-Strike, or whatever as being no different.  Anything that distracts you so far from your responsibilities needs to be looked at carefully.  That's part of the reason I sometimes have very slow progress in Gen's development is I do have responsibilities that must be addressed.  Con has a kid, job, etc to take care of, so his time is a lot more limited too.  Tab also has times when he can work like mad, and others where he's tied up and unavailable.  That's how things should be.  Someone may love a game, that's all well and good, but playing it to the point where you forget about your own offspring and let them die?  That's going way, way too far and that kind of person needs to have their head examined before they are allowed to do any breeding.

death_stalker:  Mak's upset because the news media, as usual, spins it as being the video game's fault and, as usual, shifts the blame off the parent.  How many times do you hear this sort of thing:

Video game violence
Movie violence
Television violence
Killed by an SUV
We need to get these guns off the street
He/she was abused as a child

When do they ever pin the blame where it belongs - on the irresponsibility of the person committing the act?  You can outlaw video games, televisions, movies, guns, booze - everything on the face of the planet, and it won't do any good if you keep telling people it's never, ever their fault when they do something destructive.

That crap is heavily present where I come from. Ever hear of the Red Lake shootings that happend a couple of months ago in Minnesota? Well I live about 20 miles from there. They say that he was the victim of Internet Influence and that people brainwashed him to be a neo-nazi. Government control, one videogame or website at a time.

And as if on cue...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story....0&w=RTR&coview= (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005062214260002552914&dt=20050622142600&w=RTR&coview=)

Funny, but I thought real-world violence involved very strong emotions like fear, anxiety, anger, frustration, hatred, panic, terror, etc.  Unless of course you're a serial killer, in which emotions are absent.  So, what's the study really saying here?  "Video Games Breed Cold-Blooded Killers" is the unspoken message.  Any Gen players ever killed anyone?  Anybody at all?  *waits for crickets to stop chirping...*[/color]

Someone get some glade air fresheners, because it reeks of bullshit in here.
Here comes a steaming hot pile of shit on a silver platter, courtesy of the bias scientific community.
I CONTROL MY ACTIONS NOT MY BRAIN!!!
They say serial killers have demonic influences, which if you think about it, it is true. Normal people don't kill or feel the need to kill. Science can't give an answer to that, why because science is too inane to comprehend the truth. 99% of serial killers report that they heard voices telling them to kill; science tries to prove it to no avail. I don't listen to this scientific bullshit, because it is just plain bias. Bias meaning that they keep pushing their fruitless efforts on their never ending quest to disprove God, pheh. Why? They don't want to be held accountable. I should post a story I wrote called "Mr. Ignoramous", it's a story based on fact on how the scientific community operates.

Controversy Corner exists for a reason.  If you'd like to post your story, that's the best place to do it, so long as it's within the forum guidelines and isn't a novel as far as length is concerned.  If you have it hosted somewhere, a link is always best, especially if it's long.

The brains of some serial killers were examined using an MRI.  It was found that the emotional area of the brain was not entirely functional.  To that kind of individual, stabbing someone to death is no different from eating a bowl of cornflakes.  Those kind of people are extremely dangerous because their sense of action and consequence is ruled by pure, cold logic.  As for feeling the need to kill, I can think of plenty of times I've felt that, and I consider myself quite rational, however I do know that murder is wrong so no matter how angry I may get, or frustrated, or how much I may dislike humans, I keep my feelings in check and obey the commandment not just because of the fear of consequences, spiritual or otherwise, but simply because it's not decent to kill except for defense, or food in the case of my prey.  I know what's wrong, and I have only myself to blame if I choose to do wrong.

Now I'm not going to rule out what you just said in regards to many cases as I'm quite familiar with how "voices in the head" work, and what they goad people into doing.  Science calls it "multiple personality" or schizophrenia, but where do these "alternate personalities" come from?  Where do the voices come from?  How do they get there?  What are they?  Science can't define what consciousness is, only that the brain plays a role in maintaining and supporting it, so how can it define what those other voices are?  Yet at the same time, cases of demonic possession are well documented, and so are those who have been released from it.  Science will categorically dismiss such reports without even so much as an investigation, yet we're supposed to take the commonly held psychology doctrines at face value...

It's funny that you mention the whole "I am not my brain" rant, as I had a picture in my head today of a human brain, and a caption under it saying "Is this all you are?" as a kind of poster idea, and here you're echoing my own sentiments.  Coincidence?  Only if you believe in it.  ;)

I do think we're at risk of straying somewhat offtopic though, so I'm going to move this discussion over to Controversy Corner where it can be ranted about and batted back and forth a bit more freely.

Normal compeared to what?

Just a note for this and future (sub-) topics. I will not respond or try to defend accusations regarding the goal/nature of science anymore, in addition to semi-fundamentalistic religious topics.
When I see something along the lines of this:


Which is only true if you do not really think about it. But here I almost go again, it's so hard to fight the urge to defend reason. So I digress. The point is that usually 'bullshit!' is shouted in posts which contain, indeed, bullshit.

Just for those who might be wondering why I skip over some threads without yapping in lengthy posts like usually is the case.

---

I'll make one exception. Every time I see someone comparing the scientific and the religious approach and calling the former the (more) biased one, I will post a knock-knock joke :]

The manner in which these 'confrontations' occur itself is a mockery, which is only what I want to point out with that. If people want to 'fight' for or against beliefs, our CC is open to Controversy regarding the way it is done too.

Let's be realistic here, all these "studies" that link video games and violence - who are doing these studies, are they not scientists?  Aren't they doing it because of an agenda, or that they're being told to do it by people who are just itching to prove a point and make a connection where none really exists?  And why is it that "reason" must summarily dismiss such things as possession, or anything religious in nature, because people "know better" in this day and age?  To borrow a line from Ghost Busters, I've seen shit that will turn you white, so does the opinion of some Harvard egghead invalidate my experiences?  I'll call bullshit on anyone who tells me my experiences are invalid just because they don't want to accept the possibility of something they don't like being real.  Science should not be put on a pedastal, and science (as it stands today) and reason are not the same thing.  I don't know how many times I've seen people within the scientific community flat out ignore empirical data because it was "inconvenient" and didn't mesh with the current pet popular theory of the day.  When the scientific community follows the scientific method and stops ridiculing religion, spirituality, and unexplained events that are of great significance to people then perhaps I'll take it a bit more seriously.  I have absolutely no problem with the scientific method as a process for fact finding, it's the culture I take issue with.  When people ignore facts out of convenience on either side of the aisle I take issue.  I have as much a problem with the belief that the earth is no older than 6,000 years as I do the idea of the Big Bang.  I sure as hell don't believe dinosaurs were wiped out in Noah's flood.

If science is not questioned, and especially the motives of those involved in it, then the ignorance of blind acceptence is just as dangerous as if applied to religion or a political ideology.  Reason belongs to neither science nor religion, and ignorance belongs only to those who fail to question what they're told, regardless of the source.  Remember also that there's pure science which is only interested in discovery, and applied science which uses knowledge to achieve an end.  The latter is much, much more prevalent than the former, and human intentions are involved in both, the same as religion.  Religion may have brought man the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Jihad, but science gave man the swords, the guns, and the atomic bombs with which to wage them.  No one is guiltless.

I agree with you there Phoenix. I totally agree that the studies presented here are full of straw men, red herring and misrepresentation (if not more) - I don't think that justifies an attack on science in general.
I don't see 'bias' as an essential part of science, but as a part of human nature and society. If there is one area in which the essence and intent per definition is to try and evolve understanding and reasoning, it is science. (esp. if you include philosphopy in the term)
The question of guilt of any sort did not enter my mind at all. Being judgemental is, too, a part of human nature, if you ask me.

I will not deny that people who call themselves scientists, researchers are not subject to cognitive or even willful bias. However, I certainly think that it is an area in which there is at least the goal of trying to be free from just that. No true scientist would willfully disregard evidence against his or her own claims, deny the opportunity to others to contradict or test their theories or have a specific political (hidden) agenda. Anyone who is guilty of any of that is in my eyes not a scientist, but a petty, sophistic 'manager of information'.

---

(Wordsmyth:)

or see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)


Obviously, my definition is more strict than any dictionary/general definition will be. I also want to stress that I by no means disagree with the attacks on empiricism listed on that Wikipedia page.

Check this out.
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/s...cienceFaith.htm (http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/scienceFaith.htm)

I'm not a bias against science, but what I'm saying is there would be no science if it were not for the Bible. It (the Bible) delivered more scientific fact (not theories mind you) then any scientist could deliver. This page lists many famous scientists who were inspired by the passages of the Bible. The Bible and Science work hand in hand, one without the other will cause problems, and bias. Consider it, don't make me post my Mr.Ignoramus story. ;^)
It just seems that since scientists shuned God from their motives, more theories, then facts come out of their research. Theory is a guess, a speculation, not fact.

Please, post what you will, I'm beginning to become curious about a text with an insult in the title ;]
As for 'working hand in hand', the Bible is an object, a text. It does not do any of the working - it's people who do the working. The interpreting and writing of it, to be precise. (yes this is a claim, and no, I didn't place it here for any other reason than to once again be ' the devil's advocate') Oops - this brings us back to an earlier 'discussion', which I took my distance from then, and I will stick with that.

There seems to be the idea that the whole idea behind science is to disprove religious convictions, which is not the case. In any case, it does not (or should not :)) shout a decisive 'fact' when the right words to use would be 'fact, fiction, fantasy or falsehood' - hence 'theory', which combines all the possibilities to form a structure of (sound) reasoning. To attack theories for being theories is similar to attacking agnosticism in all the common ways.
The whole point of the thing is that the meaning of the word 'fact' seems to be different for so many people, and that those who make the least bold claims are called the impulsive and 'inane' ones, which keeps being a surprise to me every time.

I guess I just would like to see a discussion about a simple sociological/political problem not devolve into a series of dogmatic statements..

I think the problem there is people will always have strong opinions and beliefs, and people with differing beliefs react differently to the same problem.  This kind of topic actually provides a good insight into just such a scenario, which is why I find it useful for my own observations.  How Washu reacts is different from how you or I react, Kruzader also reacts in a different way.  We all share the same thought in regards to the absurd assertion that video games somehow cause violence, yet our subsequent thoughts all vary in which direction they proceed.  Some tend to make blunt statements out of anger or frustration, others hold back and are more reserved.  I don't see anything wrong with any of it, it's just a question of one's nature.  How one sees the world is based in what they know, and what they accept.  We are all ruled by some kind of dogma, whether we acknowledge it as dogma or not.  It's a matter of being conscious of it, as well as how people react who believe differently.  One must acknowledge that in choosing not to decide one still makes a choice.  Even agnostics are governed by rules they create for themselves.  The main thing is to not let ones beliefs override one's ability to make rational decisions.

What I find amazing is that both science and theology are human inventions used to attempt to understand and describe something much larger than man.  In reality they should get along when you consider they are on the same mission, just taking two different approaches.  Many great scientific minds never lost sight of the wonder of the universe they were trying to understand, nor did they sacrifice a belief in something larger than man in the process.  I think it was a drive to understand more closely the creator by understanding the creation, if anything, that brought forth their efforts.  Instead of self-important arrogance, they exhibited a humble awe at this cosmos and all its workings.  At the same time, many God-fearing people exist within the scientific and medical communities today, and some of the most important scientific inventions were created for what were initially religious purposes.  The printing press, and the widespread teaching of reading and writing are a fine example of a direct result of this.  Many of the best artworks of the Renaissance contain religious subject matter.  Some of the most amazing architectural advancements were made in the construction of cathedrals, or temples.  The pyramids in Egypt, South America, the acropolis in Greece, the Parthenon, the great stoneworks in England, and the earthworks in America - all these were attempts by man using science to get closer to the object(s) of his deepest admiration and respect.  Science and faith historically have worked together, I see no reason why one must exclude the other in this day.  It is the decisions of men, as you so rightly stated, that has led to this.

Which brings me full circle.  Science is a tool, and in the case of this article, it's being used to push forward an agenda.  Someone once said "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics".  I think that person was wise.  How many bad public opinion polls, skewed statistics, or rigged studies have resulted in specific action being taken that otherwise would not be?  Deception is deception, and a lie, no matter how plausible it sounds, is still a lie.  If video games caused violence, would we be here discussing controversial matters in a heated, yet civil manner, or would we be out gunning down grannies with AK-47's?

Well said.

Back on topic :] - I think we do indeed all agree that the blame lies not with violence in games.
That said, after having played games like GTA:SA, I think the voice acting (although technically good,) is awful. It encourages 'talking gangsta' by creating the theme for another lousy fad. Ofcourse, that is only a problem because people play who shouldn't be allowed to, considering their age.

I don't fear games teaching us to be criminal deviants, but I do think any medium can teach impressionable people annoying or plain horrible traits.

For instance, the back of a chocolate sprinkles carton here (brand-name Venz, perhaps GK knows it) shows little games, puzzles and riddles for kids. That's a smart marketing movement, and as far as I know, it works. Besides, they make good chocolate, so that's acceptable. Where they go wrong is that they use hipster slang in presenting the stuff. A loose translation might be,  "Yo, solve this sheet and be coo' yaknow!" for something that ought to read "Solve the following riddle:" Usually  punctuation horrors are present, like several exclamation marks in a row, etc. The core consumer group for this product, and the texts on it: kids.
I do think the rest of the world (especially bastard business marketeers) should work with educators and parents here. Sure, parents can stop buying that brand, but you know how peer pressure and fads work for kids. It's also less easily detectable as a problem in society. Take the fact that we (that is, humans on average) see commercials as a normal, acceptable things, while they're designed to trick and semi-brainwash us (into buying shit we don't need)...

FPS games aren't real life?? Dammit, that's why "kick all" doesn't work ...

I find myself quite dismissive not of religion itself, but of those in heightened positions who advocate it, as usually they're the ones perpetuating the hate in the world. Science isn't without its evils either, as Pho pointed out, as we invent more effective and efficient ways of killing those who disagree with us.

"When you talk to God, it's called prayer, but when God talks to you, it's called paranoid schizophrenia ..." -Billy Connolly (I think)

Tab:  Well, here's food for thought.  Almost all humans breed at some point.  Since those employed at marketing firms tend to have offspring, what does that say about their character: either knowing their own offspring will be exposed to the marketing and not caring, being completely oblivious to the fact that they are, or else fully complicit with the said brainwashing?  I'm also sad to see "gangsta" speech invading even Europe.  For all the Euro bashing that goes on in the US, I was hoping at least that you'd be spared that curse over there and maintain at least a little bit of that "refined" air.  (How does it even translate into other languages anyway?)

I think impressionable minds, especially young ones, don't need to be seeing graphic violence or other questionable media precisely because they are young and impressionable.  Desensitization is a tool used in mental conditioning for military and espionage purposes, among other things.  I think a certain level of maturity should be reached, where one has a firm grasp of reality, before playing such games, listening to that kind of music, or watching those kinds of movies.  Ratings exist for a reason.  If games are so dangerous, why let the kids play them?  Would you hand a 12 year old a loaded gun?  Then why give them a video game that's below their maturity level?  That's where it's up to the parents to stay involved and actually participate in their kids lives.  I don't buy the "too busy" excuse either.  If you're too busy to pay attention to your kids, then you're too busy to have kids in the first place.

I always thought the games where standard and including chocolate was the marketing move .

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=...005-08-26&res=l (http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=2005-08-26&res=l)

Very true, Satan works in all of us, attacks us when we are vulnerable.

There will never be a shortage of stupid sporking morons.