NYMoogle -

Killer bread is kinda hard to describe (sort of in the way most kids games are), but basically it is just tag plus hide and seek, mixed with the fear of being killed by bread, apparently. We were kind of a weird family (this was something I played mostly with my cousins when I was growing up).

One person is the killer bread, and everyone runs and hides from him/her. There's usually a lot of tribal chanting ("killer BREAD ... killer BREAD" and so on), but that's not necessary. There are a few bases, so while the killer bread's goal is to find you and tag you (i.e. kill you), you can always run from your hiding spot to the base. This is the primary departure from hide and seek, as it's not always a good idea to hide all the time. If you suspect that the killer bread is going to find you (and, say, you're getting cornered in the process), you can pre-empt the 'finding' and just book it for a base.

Similarly, some of the best hiding spots may be far from a base, so counter-intuitive as it may be, sometimes taking a mediocre hiding spot will pay off in the end. If you get killed by the bread, generally something bad will happen. Maybe you'll be out of the game, or have to go to jail (in which case, you may be freed in the typical 'olly olly oxen free'-style), or you might become the killer bread. This was probably the shakiest detail of the game, and admittedly something we never really had to worry about since none of us were particularly good runners, and the real fun of the game was that little anticipation before running to base anyway.

Another GREAT game was sardines. you guys ever play that? I'll explain for the videogame generation ;)

It's basically hide and seek again, but one person hides, and everyone seeks (usually by splitting up). The goal isn't to find the person hiding, but to hide with them and to avoid being the last person seeking. It's a neat sort of reverse hide-'n-seek that works better in a very big house than in my grandparents house where there were only like 4 closets you could possibly be in. We must have been extremely small people back then, because those closets were not very big.

Man. talk about nostalgia.

/lost to my brother in RBI baseball every night :(

MonkeyBoy666: Some kids are going to be able to adapt. But man... there's a hell of a lot who are going to be stuck working at a retail store for the rest of their life.

Or a lot of bosses getting fired because they can't find ways to motivate their staff. Then, subsequently, a lot of new and young bosses.

Oh come on, what about common sense? Provide me some names, etc. of published studies to support the view that fire is hot and that boobies are fun to look at.

pressing buttons on a gamepad while laying on your fat ass and drinking a slurpee controlling an image of a guy blowing up robots or soldiers on a little screen is not exactly training for violence. it's more likely to make you lazy.

the act of playing video games is not similar to the act of commiting violence. if it causes violent behavior, then it follows that movies make people violent too, and probably music.

sizzam:
Oh come on, what about common sense? Provide me some names, etc. of published studies to support the view that fire is hot and that boobies are fun to look at.

First of all, common sense is a stupid statement. Birds of a feather flock together and opposites attract are both "common sense" in their own way. They're also contradictory. Likewise a violent video game is cathartic possibly and may lower violence. It's also not like movies aren't even more violent or that the games of the past weren't in their own ways violent.

Second of all, the statement was that science supported the given conclusion, which entails the existence of a consensus in studies. You claim that and I request sources, which if you're not lying should be trivial to get.

Furthermore, I would like to see a study on a group where violence leves were measured beforehand and after exposure to videogames. Also, I would like to see comparisons on time spent with parent, familly history of mental illness/famillial predisposition to violence and levels of discipline and parental guidelines for good/bad behavior.

It's called random assignment to study conditions.

Look it up.

And don't forget vandalism:
=

MonkeyBoy666: I caught an episode of 60 Minutes that interviewed the latest generation of US workers a few months ago.

That's an awful lot of interviews -- top notch investigative reporting by 60 minutes.

This is just a manufactured non-issue. I am a 24 year-old college graduate, and from my experiences most people make the same rant as you just did, but yet can't actually point anyone out that acts like that. I grew up in the first wave of this "everyone's a winner" crap, and I can tell you that the vast majority of my peers recognized from the very beginning that it was BS... and the few stragglers figured it out eventually. There is no epidemic of college graduates with your purported self-esteem issue.

All this is is the people who claimed from the beginning that it would be harmful are reaching as far as they can to find any examples of said harm.


"When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, it will filter everything else out and find examples of that thing everywhere."
-- Sol, from Pi

Everyone knows Mario's turning towards the violence with everything else anyway:

Example, try to name three people from columbine high school.

Okay, Eric Harris... Matt Stone... and Trey Parker. Notice that two out of the three had nothing to do with the Columbine shootings :p

/ got that from Bowling for Columbine
// I can't take complete credit for it
/// profit!

Article doesn't even say anything about video games

Ringshadow: Why do people always blame video games anyways?

few blame themselves until they have exhausted all other possibilities.

Release_The_Kracken huh.... because some people will remember the names of those 2 twisted farks makes them cool. Are you some sort of Moran?

Are you? It would be stupid to try to ignore the fact that anyone with the level of notoriety those two gained are going to looked up to by some for doing what they can't.

Video games are evil! Sex is evil! Fatty foods are evil! When will we resort to this:



?

eskimobill Okay, Eric Harris... Matt Stone... and Trey Parker. Notice that two out of the three had nothing to do with the Columbine shootings :p
a)No they didn't
b)rhetorical question

Eliminating violence is easy.

I'd suggest using the exact same policy that we used against pirates - which I think everyone would agree are extremely violent. As you can see from this image:





If we increase the global temperature, we decrease the number of pirates. The same relationship probably holds for all violent persons. This is why I don't move to Alaska... Too many pirates.

Ch*** don't give them ideas!!!

Last thing we want is another media feeding frenzy that Jack "I'm My Own Worst Enemy" Thompson to be in the middle of.

unless he's getting mauled...

lostcat, last redneck:"OH NOES!!!1!"

There's nothing wrong with the kids of this generation, at least nothing more than any previous generation. You think that going outside and playing with groups is needed? I say your childhood experience was too sheltered and coddled. You played with 10-15 kids from the neighborhood, who all generally (I know there are exceptions) came from relatively similar backgrounds, nationalities, experiences. Todays kids, at least those exposed to the internet, are interacting with thousands of other kids from all sorts of different backgrounds, etc.

You think video games are problematic vs the all-glorious baseball, basketball, etc? Are you delusional? The required mental processes to succeed at today's video games are much beyond anything a pickup game of biddy-ball generates (try playing any game online -- the level of competition is unbelievable). Hell, all the schoolyard games I remember involved a few kids dominating the ball and the rest not doing much beyond just standing around.

Now, your point about not getting the needed physical stimulus is absolutely spot-on. I imagine there will be a very large increase in physical problems judging by the lack of physical development I see in the youth of today. Then again, I'm not a doctor or a parent; so, I don't know how valid my opinion is.

ZoeNekros I love that movie.

tonesskin -

There are a lot of studies that show (possibly) causal links between videogames and short-term aggression, but relatively few that look at aggression on a longer term than a few hours (this is true of many of Donnerstein and Linz' studies). This is obviously a big deal because the real effect of interest is whether you are becoming a more aggressive person, and not whether the violent media is causing temporary arousal (which is somewhat of a non-question. it does).

There are some studies that show this disconnect between the immediate and long-term effects of videogame violence, but there really need to be more before people can drawn an accurate conclusion one way or another.

Birds of a feather flock together and opposites attract are both "common sense" in their own way

Neither of those is common sense. Examples of common sense would be wear a jacket when it's cold, or don't spit into the wind. Things you should know without thinking about. You seem to be confusing common sense with commonly used phrases or something.

I read the headline as "..jumps on goomahs"... need to be more games where you do that...

/too much sopranos

JRHoward -

in a way, though, "common sense" IS a commonly used phrase. touchée

raor

I play games online every day, and yeah the kids are good and it takes a lot of skill to play well. but it doesnt challenge your body and your mind like sports, it doesnt develop your social skills, and frankly, any fatass with enough time on their hands can get good. texting to people you never meet is not a great learning social experience. it makes people less adept at face to face communication.

games are fun, they are an alternative to sports. but experience tells me that a kid who's spent most of his life getting good at counterstrike is gonna be less prepared for the real world than a kid who played in little league, all other things being equal.

/sucks at sports

raor,

So you are saying that by kids playing on the internet they are better people because they may interact with people of other nationalities or races? That is seriously week. If the kids are interacting through the interenet playing games then the experiance is not that different, how many kids in the Bronx have xBox 360's and and xBox Live to play vs. Surburban kids in Southern Cal.? I just don't see it happening. As far as skills of Video games vs. Skills learned in pickup games, well have you ever worked out the rules for a group to play Forza Motorsport on Live? Not much too it, the host sets the rules and if you want to play by their rules join the game, or not. It is impersonal online, if you pissoff someone you can just disconnect and logon with a new name, but in Real life, it could result in a fist fight if you camp the spawn site.

/The skills missing on the net are the interpersonal skills of life.
//Makes sense when they fail at retail.

Neither of those is common sense. Examples of common sense would be wear a jacket when it's cold, or don't spit into the wind. Things you should know without thinking about. You seem to be confusing common sense with commonly used phrases or something.

No you were the first to do so, as "violent video games cause violence" is not common sense (see above link t oa study which doesn't find this) but simply a common phrase as you say.

tonesskin
It's called random assignment to study conditions.

Look it up.

Impossible in many long term social science studies, as for some reason forcing behavior on many people over long periods of times doesn't work out that well. And we are considering long term effects here; I don't care if the kid is more violent for a whole 1 hour afterwards if there is no permanent change. Many attempt to fix this with statistics and other experimental design, however the results can still be so horribly distorted as to be laughable.

The anonymity of the internet makes it != social interaction.

/oh, and that kid in counterstrike who says it's ok for him to say the n-word because he's black? He's not. Anonymity kills decent social interaction.

To Reyals

Okay, I'll admit to being wrong about that. Movie apparently said that Matt Stone was at a rival school in Littleton. My bad. They were just from Colorado.

It's not a rhetorical question, if it is posed as a statement of challenge. You responded with a link that is out of context (rhetorical question... lol) There was no question. Just:

Example, try to name three people from columbine high school.

On that note, I'm no better for posting my drivel :D

The best study about long-term effects of videogame violence I ever heard about (a presentation I saw last year) was one that forced people to play videogames for a certain number of hours a day for months. It showed absolutely no effects of videogames, other than that older men ended up with "slight relationship problems." The reason, the older men explained, was that their wives were fed up with them playing videogames all the time.

/omg, i'm late for bball!

Personally, I blame it all on PONG

/*sigh*
//showes my age

Todays kids, at least those exposed to the internet, are interacting with thousands of other kids from all sorts of different backgrounds, etc.

Yeah, I play Halo 2 on XBox Live. I hear the kinds of interaction these kids are having with "thousands of other kinds from all sorts of different backgrounds" and it sucks.

I agree, the Internet will allow kids the opportunity to learn about things, places, people that I could not as a child. But I wanted to learn about those places, so I used my imagination, and my friends and I got together to play silly games in which we were pirates/ninjas/astronauts/monsters/scuba divers/etc.

If parents got involved with their kids' use of the Internet, there would be some amazing stuff going on.

Again...I'm not attacking video games and the Internet. I'm worried about kids not experiencing their childhoods. And if you don't think it's a problem, look around at the the multitude of people in your own peer group who spent 5+ hours a day watching TV.

If anything about video games makes me violent, it's not being able to throw my sword when I'm not at full health.

Pirate post! Invisible spaghetti monster is god!

xenkylm: Anonymity kills decent social interaction.

no kidding. most people on the 'net say crap they wouldn't IRL for the simple reason that it's currently not possible to biatchslap people over standard TCP/IP.

I'm working on a solution though.

GGGODLIKE???

/got a ludicrous kill once
//zoom
///instagib
////triple jump
//lowgrav
//slashie mutator

Two hours later, a semi was hit by gunfire on I-69 near Muncie, and an unoccupied pickup truck was hit nearby in the same area. No one was injured in those shootings

How does gunfire hit something? Fire that editor. And the writer.

Lafcadio: video games can cause violence just like smoking can cause cancer. just because you smoke doesn't mean you'll be dead in 10 years, but the odds are greater than if you didn't smoke. the science is pretty clear on the fact that violent video games increase aggression, it's just that the video game industry has more power than the scientists to persuade you otherwise.

Wow. You're way off. Studies HAVE shown a link between violence in children and violence in games, but have not concluded that the violent games CAUSE the violence in children. Does it not seem even more logical that children who already have violent are drawn towards violent games?

I mean sure, I'll agree that there is the very rare kid who will become much more violent as a result of the video game, but there are other issues that are closer to the root of the problem, such as mental health. Normal people are relatively unaffected. If the kids who acted out on the violence from video games lived in a world without ANY video games, they'd still likely end up doing something violent and there would be something else to blame.

In fact, I think violent video games are a very good thing simply because of the fact that violent kids will be more likely to play them. They definitely need an outlet. Almost every time you hear about some serial killer or some guy who just seemed to go crazy and start killing people one day, the people that were close to them could have told you that they were usually more peaceful and less aggressive than the average person.

*sigh*

This kind of shiat is getting old. I didn't even know there was a copycat sniper in IN, but now that I know, fark him. He's a little unoriginal pussy who obviously couldn't make a single farking friend so now his uninspired piece of shiat little ass has to go and copycat something that's already been done.

Way to go asshole! You're cool!

Oh, and video games have no effect on people. It's parenting. I was ripping people hearts out in Mortal Kombat as a child, killing people endlessly in many games throughout my teen years, and I grew up to be a normal farking citizen.

Quit looking for excuses America!

Reyal


Still a little disturbed about the "cool" statement. Especially, since as far as having a greater following for being "cool" or looked up to, I'd probably remember Cassie Bernall and Rachel Scott, who had books and media published about them saying "yes" to believing in God before being shot by Eric Harris. I'm not religious, but that would seem to have gathered more of a following than the shooters.

I guess this would all support your argument that "cool" is relative - since the girls were martyred by Christian groups and authors for supposedly saying "Yes" to such questions before dying. I certainly don't look up to Eric or Dylan. Just seems like a stretch to me. Everyone in that whole situation was a victim and got more feelings of pity and sympathy than "cool", imo. Then again, I'm just a poster on fark :).

Still, I answered 2 out of the 3 once again without naming both shooters. Do I get a prize?

Pfern - My favorite line in the video game defense is that just because I love playing Mario Kart doesn't mean I like driving real fast and throwing bananas at peoples cars.

Well, it's clever and cute... but it's also kind of pointless.

You can't really compare a cartoonish 3rd person perspective game to a highly-detailed, extremely realistic first person game... to be glib, the first is just that, a game. The second is a "simulator."

I'm not a big "OMG Blame the games!!!" guy, because I think a lot of different factors come into play to create a killer, but I think people take a much to binary view of the debate. (i.e. cause vs. don't cause)

The reality is probably that they're not exactly healthy... probably not for anybody, but particularly during developmental periods and or when engaged in to excess.

Like I said, FPS's really are violence/massacre simulators, and there's a reason we use simulators to train people for everything from flight to combat to driving to surgery... they're extremely effective... next best thing to being there.

But, like I said... I think there are a lot of factors that go in to churning out a truly screwed up individual, and I think video games are probably one of the most trivial.

I'd be much more concerned about the -social- fabric of society as an entire myspace generation comes of age... or an entire generation raised in the era of catered viewpoints, where there is for practical purposes little or no recognition of objective truth... just information spinhouses that cater to chosen perspectives.

eskimobill:
I'd suggest using the exact same policy that we used against pirates - which I think everyone would agree are extremely violent. As you can see from this image:

Pirates are violent?! This sort of hate speech should not be allowed in America! As a member of the Nautical Union Troops Swashbuckling and Pirating Insult Taskforce, commonly known as NUTSPIT, I find these sorts of gross generalizations highly offensive. Because there is absolutely no mention of pirates being violent in the Bible, your assertion cannot possibly be true, no matter how many "scientific studies" have been done, and is likely just another horrible lie perpetrated by the liberal media in their attempts to wage war on Christians. I demand that you apologize immediately and stop spreading these lies.

//Seeker

P.S. Vote Republican!

He is from Delaware County, home of Muncie. Maybe growing up there had something to do with it?

/BSU grad/escapee

stupid missing italics close tag ....

eskimobill - Still, I answered 2 out of the 3 once again without naming both shooters. Do I get a prize?

Two!

a lifetime subscription to the popular internet search application Google!
"Google, navigating the tubes since 2001!"

and a free full-featured defintion of the phrase "Splitting hairs!"

"To argue about an inconsequential and trivial aspect of an issue: 'When you are accused of being forty-five minutes late for an appointment, you are splitting hairs to say that you were really only forty minutes late.'"



Seriously, if you didn't have to google those two names... more power to you, but the reality is.. out of that situation, if you asked 100 people, particularly teenagers, the same question he posed, I'd be surprised if 30 could come up with anything but Harris and Klebold.

In any case, the point is that just like Harris and Klebold themselves... some kids out there somewhere will look at that and carve that notoriety.

It's wasn't a cultural literacy quiz, it was a rhetorical question posed to make a very valid point.