Games are all about learning. I love to watch my skill with a new game improve. It involves all aspects of learning.

Initially you are thinking, "press up, hold it, okay, now tap right quickly." After a couple of nights sleep though, you start thinking, "Jump. Cling to the roof. Deploy some traps." You've rewired your brain to be able to express these abstract impulses as controller inputs without having to tediously make the translation consciously. The feeling of that level of fluency is very rewarding.

But meanwhile, at another level of thinking, you are inevitably analyzing the structure of the game. Initially you are probably paying more attention to the story, characters, setting, production; very movie-like considerations. This is where the violence lies. But it's all just trapping. Though the story may remain engaging, very quickly players will penetrate its facade and begin to think in terms of the underlying game mechanics. Your character may be caught up in a brutal, bloody tale, and accumulating "experience" with ever kill, but the player is not. The player is calculating odds, considering strategy and tactics, and applying their increasingly sharp fluency to abstract problems.

It might look like blood, but players no more think of it as such than office workers are confused into thinking that the "desktop" metaphor on their PCs has something to do with the desk their monitor sits upon.

The criticism often seems like someone who has never played Chess decrying it's advocation of regicide.

I think people making the claim that the motions add to the game need to play the games. The motions are usually meaningless with the Wiimote.

A highly elaborate way of slicing bread methinks.

I'm not sure, but are they saying that since Guitar Hero fuels interest in guitars, the zapper will fuel interest in guns, and Manhunt will fuel interest in killing?

It sure sounds like it, but does that mean that we should stop kids from playing cops and robbers? On the Wii they are playing against virtual baddies but in real life they are pointing their finger-gun at their friends. Which is worse?

Here we go again, video games will bring about the fall of civilization.

So let me get this straight. Using a remote control will teach children the mechanics of murdering someone? Do politicians think children are imbeciles? Maybe they think parents and teachers are imbeciles? Come on, these people know children aren't that stupid, they just need to find a way to further their own careers. Liebermann's been trying for decades (since I was a child, for crying out loud) to convince the public about the evils of video games. Hmmm, you know Joe, I don't think that angle is working for you buddy. You need to find some other way to land in the White House me thinks.

Games are games and nothing can change the inescapable fact that a controller, regardless of shape, colour or function is still just a controller. It's not a gun, not a sword, or hatchet or kitchen knife. Just a controller used to interact with a game.

I'm surprised...why haven't they gone after steering wheel controllers? We don't want to encourage a child to go on a joyride in dad's car now do we?

I bought the Logitech G25 Racing Wheel, and I have to say, that makes racing games feel so much real than playing it on a keyboard or any regular hand-held controller. The wheel has a force feedback to feel and turn like a real steering wheel, with a seprate Gear-shifter mount, with an Optional H-pattern (6-speed + a reverse gear) or Sequencal Shifting, with also 3 pedals, with each pedal has a resistance to feel like its actual pedal. For $300, It was totally with the Cash...except having no power in my house to use it...

The same arguement of video game guns leading to real life violence perhaps was applied to the original nintendo (NES) gun, which came with mario/duck hunt. Having killed thousands of ducks in my time with that gun, I have yet to hunt a real duck. Also, I have never tried to break bricks with my head, no matter how realistic those bricks look in the new mario games. Video games do not intrinsicly breed mimcry (or idiocy, for that matter). However, with that said, mimicry is only one facet of the discussion. Certain games, such as Manhunt, involve violent images and actions that are certainly not appropriate for children, and aren't suitable for unbalanced individuals who may be easily influenced to violence. I'm sure that most people realize this, and are more concerned with the increasingly realistic human targets - and a fear that someday one of the kids who plays the game is going to, because of the training of the game, visit violence upon their child at school or them or their neighbor at home. These fears are based on the real experiences of unfortunate people, as any who read the news on this website can attest. This fear often looks for something to blame, and current media attention has been drawn to violence in video games. I would argue that this blame is misplaced which is partly due to a misunderstanding of the appeal of certain video games - what draws gamers to them. Having played many violent video games myself (example: Xbox 360 - Gears of War, Halo 3), I have to say it isn't the blood and gore that draws me to a game - things like strategy and being able to think and act creatively are what bring me back to a game. The blood adds to the realism of the game, the same way that details and textures do, making the game more believable. However, I must add the caveat that war games (and dungeon crawlers/rpg's) are different than a game that allows you or encourages you to murder innocents. (Continued)

(continued) We should do everything we can to raise children/teens to reject and abhor murdering innocent people. Period. In war games there is a clearly defined enemy and little time to savour your kill - because the next guy is right around the corner and you have to react quickly, paying attention to your surroundings. The primary attraction is not the violence, but the fun of competition and besting your opponent with your skill and strategy - things like a "headshot" are considered special because of the extra skill they require, not because they have additionally graphic animations. I think that a game with a primary attraction of violence or brutality has a limited market: people that are excited by violence or brutality. With that said, however, the instinct for violence and competition are rooted deep in the human psyche - for example: we could not have justice without violence of some kind. This instinct cannot (and I would argue should not) be eliminated easily, and I have doubts as to whether a complete eradication of this instinct is even possible. So my proposed solution to how to deal with violent video games? Parents being concerned for their childrens emotional stability, and acting instead of complaining about violent video games. A way to facilitate this would be sticking with the ratings system and ENFORCING IT! There are good reasons why games and movies are rated - READ THE RATINGS AND THE GAME/MOVIE DESCRIPTIONS (or a review) before purchasing or renting for your child. If in doubt, play the game, watch the movie yourself! $5 and an hour of your time can go a long way to understanding what kind of game your child is requesting from you. Ask them what makes the game fun for them. Teach your kids to tell the difference between video games and reality, if they haven't picked up on that glaringly obvious fact. (continued 2)

(continued 2) Violence seeking individuals require help, correction, discipline, and incarceration if necessary - no half hearted passive things such as limiting video game violence and gun controllers are going to turn them into peace loving people. Violence is a choice, and it should not come as a surprise that those who are of that mindset also seek out the most violent music, video games, movies, etc. Don't confuse cause and effect. Outer actions come from inner desires. The people who are so vocal about banning violent video games or gun shaped controllers would be quite disappointed to find that violent people are still violent when they have no video games to play. Without the root causes, video games that portray graphic violence and brutality towards innocents would have little to no market, and thus would soon disappear, or appear only in games that allow it (for believability) but penalize it preferably harshly (ie: game over). People would then ideally choose not to use that feature of the game, because they find it distasteful and/or unrewarding. We would then be left with the competetive/strategy/creativity games.

That was a fascinating read Jesse! Kudos, my friend.

The ESRB rating system is largely a joke thats used only to determine what software can enter the gaming market (AO being the 'kiss of death', for example) instead of being more of a guiding factor in who said software is recommended for.

Happy gaming!

This is an unrelated note, but I'll say it anyways. Did you know that the bricks in the original Super Mario Brothers were trapped townspeople? You were murdering them whenever you broke them.

Now, I know duck hunt never made me want to shoot ducks, but what about dogs? Haha.

I think politicians need to figure out that kids aren't as dumb as they think.

I'm not sure these politicians know this, but violence dates back before 30 years.

Thank you Garet... I've always hated that dog >:(
Anyways, its true. Kids aren't as stupid as people think they are. Though it maybe true for some kids, video games don't cause violence. Those that it does happen to is the ones who have mental issues, or are unable to seipher reality from fantasy. Those who are mentally intact know it, or else we would have many present generations who are theives, bandits, killers, serial killers, car 'jackers', street car racers, etc etc etc... And I know for some people with all the news about these type of situations that it happens a lot. Let me remind everyone; their are a lot of places on the earth. MANY, many towns, and so what if ONE kid does something drastic? Becuase of a video, or video game like incident? that's just ONE kid out of how many? point taken, i do beleive.