[aidenn0]

That's actually great evidence! Much better than "I and many of my friends who are currently successful played violent games and we are just fine." The latter is about as convincing as "My grandfather lived to be 90 and he smoked like a chimney."

[buran77]

A good friend of mine has conducted such a study some time ago (unfortunately I don't have a link at hand) and the team's conclusion was that the games themselves had no impact on violence, it was the multiplayer aspect that made the biggest difference. As in the frustration caused by the human factor in the game lead to far more negative sentiments and violence than the game itself with the same mechanics (playing against the game) ever could. This was exacerbated in games that allowed "humiliating" behavior from the opposing players (think fatalities and the like).

I tend to agree and I can confirm with anecdotal evidence from all around real life. Take traffic for example where road rage is always directed at other people no matter how small their trespass, while far more damaging incidents where no other person was involved are met with some swear words (getting 2 flat tires at once, seeing a tree fall on your car, etc.).

It's other people and their perceived trespasses that cause the buildup of frustration and violence.

[paulryanrogers]

This was my personal experience too. And people will find ways to humiliate others in games without such measures like Halo's teabagging.

[buran77]

In real sports such a gesture would be met with widespread condemnation and actual in game punishment, bans, etc. Which is why games following real sports do it the same way. No sports game will allow you to simulate a celebration, or score your points in a manner lacking fair play, trying to replicate real life.

Allowing things like "teabagging" without instant ban for the user, even building dedicated humiliating moves in a game, or emphasizing some animations like slow motion kill cams when a certain score style was achieved are the reason I have a hard time respecting the gaming industry or taking e-sports seriously (purely because of games' design decisions, not the player).

[rcoveson]

You're not comparing apples to apples. E-sports leagues will penalize you if you audaciously disrespect your opponents. Also, the majority of the most popular e-sports don't include extreme game play distractions like kill cams. In League of Legends, CS:GO, Overwatch, and Dota, a kill does not disrupt the killer's animations (it would be infuriating if it did).

Comparing the tea-bagging that occurs in online Halo play with the rules in place in the NFL is silly. Better to compare online Halo or Call of Duty with beer league hockey.

[buran77]

You were very selective with your reading of my comment, discarding any bit that inconvenienced your uncharitable and wrong interpretation. Not sure if this is bad faith or a reading comprehension issue.

Throughout my comment I made a few things explicitly clear. That I don't blame the gamers, rather the game devs for including the option and the leagues for choosing to play games that have this. And that many games are fine. You chose to ignore that when making your case.

To your point, plenty of games exicitly have such behavior built-in via fatalities, takedowns, executions, or some signature move and slow motion kill-cam to be shown to the victim usually, all with animations that go beyond "I defeated my enemy" into "I humiliated them". There's only one reason to include such mechanism in a game and that's that they want gamers to use them. A league promoting those games regardless of whether it punishes using that feature still endorses them in their entirety. Those are the ones I'm having issues with.

The gaming and e-sports industries don't do enough to call the offenders out on this behavior. At best they turn a blind eye while still playing and promoting such games. I'm sorry but this is like having Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein at your birthday party and thinking it's ok because they didn't harass anyone while you were in the room.

The fact that I still have to explain this already speaks volumes.

[ajuc]

I've played DOTA 2 and Starcraft 2, and while both are exceptionally competitive multiplayer games - DOTA is far more toxic. I've had maybe 10 toxic communications in years of playing sc2. Almost every lost game of dota ends in name calling and blaming each other for the loss. Almost every game of starcraft ends with the losing player writing "gg" and surrendering.

In my opinion there's several factor contributing to this differences in cultures:

1. starcraft match usually takes about 15 minutes. Dota game takes about 45 minutes.

2. you are expected to surrender in starcraft when you recognize it's over - playing to lose condition is disrepectful; you cannot surrender in dota in practice (abandoning the game is harshly penalized by the matchmaking system)

3. there's more than 10% chance you'll be stuck playing a lost game that you have no influence over for more than 30 minutes in dota. This never happens in starcraft - either you surrender or you think you can win.

4. the culture of starcraft is influenced mostly by Koreans. Showing off isn't considered cool. Fountain diving is common in dota.

I don't think it's multiplayer games that are inherently toxic. I think highly competitive team-based multiplayer games played with random people with no way to surrender are :) And even then I'm yet to see an example of dota player becoming violent because of the game. If any game can do this it has to be dota.

[rcoveson]

So, to restate the problem as you see it: There is currently some overlap between games that include humiliation-encouraging mechanics and games that are popular as e-sports. There should be zero overlap; those games should not be played professionally because playing them professionally indirectly endorses all the features of the game, including those humiliation features? Even when professional leagues ban their use. I can at least understand where you’re coming from, but I still think your generalization of e-sports is as strange as generalizing meat sports.

My first question is, which games, which mechanics, and which e-sports organizations are we talking about here? Because from my perspective, the biggest e-sports in the world are LoL, CS:GO, Dota 2, Starcraft, and maybe WoW. Not one of these has any purpose-built game disrupting humiliation mechanics like the ones we’ve talked about. And as far as I know, the organizations that run the largest tournaments for these games are often, even usually, not the same organizations that run tournaments for other games.

So you have trouble taking all of e-sports seriously because some org runs tournaments for some games that happen to include mechanics that encourage highly unsportsmanlike behavior. Do you have trouble taking all of wrestling seriously because showy costume wrestling exists? Riot games doesn’t get to tell indie Street Fighter tournaments to shut down because they’re making e-sports look bad, nor would that if they could, because people who actually care about e-sports don’t assign Street Fighter’s problems to LoL.

The “gaming and e-sports industry” doesn’t act as a unit any more than all of cable television does.

So, call out your offenders, if you feel they aren’t being called out. But first, ask yourself: did that game developer even intend to make a game whose primary purpose was being a sport? Or are the tournament organizers just trying to make it work as one, despite it having some features that have to be disallowed? And why is that a big deal?

[paulryanrogers]

Personally I don't mind if games want to include humiliation as a mechanic. My larger point is that people will be jerks no matter the arena.

Still, it is possible that games with such mechanics--or graphic violence generally--may amplify bad behavior elsewhere. My guess though is this can never be conclusively proven true or false as there are just so many confounding factors.

[Mary-Jane]

Given the political bent of this forum, I'm curious how people would react to the fact that the same argument could be applied to the prevalence of guns in America, e.g. gun ownership has been steadily increasing since the 50's, but violent crime peaked in the 90's.

[aidenn0]

Public debate on gun policy in the US is amazingly bad. On one side all regulations and restrictions are bad, on the other side proposed regulations and restrictions are extremely poorly targeted.

The former is probably obvious so here's some points for the latter:

Public debate centers around "assault weapons" high powered rifles and mass shootings.

- 2/3rds of gun deaths are suicides (usually with handguns)

- The vast majority of gun homicides are with handguns

- The broadest definition of "mass shooting" I could find was 4 or more victims (excluding the shooter). That puts mass shooting deaths on par with accidental gun deaths; about 1% of total gun deaths and single-digit percentage of gun homicides.

Now, I'm not saying ending mass shootings is a bad thing, but it's as if everyone worried about traffic fatalities in the US was informed by watching "The Fast and the Furious" and wanted to ban forced-induction sports cars and was super worried about deaths from underground road races.

[aidenn0]

As another aside, California (with the harshest gun laws) is one of the only states to show declining gun deaths since 1981. I'd like to see the homicide and suicide numbers brought out separately, since (in most states) any decrease in homicides is completely shadowed by the huge increase in suicides. With coastal California having a much lower gun-ownership rate, I assume people committing suicide choose other means (nobody I know who killed themselves in California used a gun, while 2/3 of those I know who killed themselves in the midwest did, the third being a woman, who is much less statistically likely to choose a gun).

[mulmen]

Correlation does not imply causation.

[aidenn0]

A lack of correlation is pretty strong evidence for a lack of causation though. (My personal inability to find correlation is much weaker evidence, since who knows how many confounding variables there could be)