kai2: I am wondering if that spark -- that catalyst of change which can be transformative (in good or bad ways) -- is being burned in video games instead of IRL.

Pouyou-pouyou: I have to strongly disagree. Here in France, people play GTA like anywhere else, and yet we have more and more riots every year so that the country is becoming a shithole more and more every year.

So no, video games are not a way to restrain people from discontentment.

tremere110: The satisfaction would not be the same. You know it's not real and any change you make is immaterial since it's just a video game. If you are satisfied killing video cops you weren't going to kill real cops anyways. Most people realize killing cops is a terrible way to effect change in any case - but it might feel good to kill fictional representation of cops to work out your frustrations. Video games are all about escaping reality and doing things you can't or won't do in real life.

And if the need for change requires insurrection - then it will happen regardless of how many video games are out there. Look at Hong Kong. If there is a dire need for change people won't sit idly by because they have games. In one sense video games can prepare one for insurrection - sharpening reflexes, strategic minds and training to never give up despite failure. If you want social control, there are far better ways that won't make the populace more adapted to rebellion - like drugging the hell out of them.

CMOT70: The short answer is yes, in a way they are- just like sport and other diversions.

The longer answer: The human is a very aggressive and territorial species of animal- specifically a primate and like most primates is also tribal. What humans do, the violence and aggression, is perfectly natural and goes back to the instincts required for early survival. The great torment for the human is that our intellect has far outstripped the natural evolution of our base instincts. Intellect cannot be overcome instinct at a species level. Modern social disorders, like pacifism, go completely against everything instinctive. Suppress the instincts of any animal and all you do is make it even more aggressive.

So the Romans came up with blood sports and the Greeks came up with the Olympics, as early attempts to manage aggression and stop wide spread social problems for an increasingly bored- yet still very dangerous animal. It gave people an outlet for their aggression and the spectators a team for their tribalism. Modern sports do the same thing, it gives us something safer as an outlet, all with rules and medical help on standby.

Video games are another modern form. Violent games do not make us more violent, we are that already. They give us an outlet, and make it that much less likely we'll go down to the Pub and start a brawl and glass people. Everyone jumps on the hype train and blames Doom for two kids walking a school and opening fire. But no one ever mentioned the other countless millions that played Doom and did not walk into a school and shoot it up.

Yes, video games like many other things, are types of social control that can be used to keep our base instincts relatively in check. But if you're having fun, who cares?

Pouyou-pouyou: I have to strongly disagree. Here in France, people play GTA like anywhere else, and yet we have more and more riots every year so that the country is becoming a shithole more and more every year.

So no, video games are not a way to restrain people from discontentment.

kai2: If the economics of populations here haven't gotten better since the 90's (in fact they've gotten much worse)

kai2: *snip*

kai2: If the economics of populations here haven't gotten better since the 90's (in fact they've gotten much worse) -- and economics are usually the biggest underlying factor in riots -- why are we seeing no rioting (or even many marches)?

kai2: BTW, I'm not advocating rioting or violence against anyone -- especially not against cops.

I live in Los Angeles and we are known for movie stars, earthquakes, and a riot or two. The last true riot we had was in the early 90's. That got me to thinking...

If the economics of populations here haven't gotten better since the 90's (in fact they've gotten much worse) -- and economics are usually the biggest underlying factor in riots -- why are we seeing no rioting (or even many marches)?

I keep wondering if it's video games.

In the past, people took their frustrations to the street. Now they go home and load up GTA V.

In the past they might confront the first level of government -- law enforcement. Now they go online and "kill" virtual cops -- expelling anger and passion in a video game moreso than on-the-street.

I'm wondering if the virtual world -- however fun -- is actually subverting the energy that might in the past have been a catalyst for change?

Please understand I am not advocating violence, but I am wondering if that spark -- that catalyst of change which can be transformative (in good or bad ways) -- is being burned in video games instead of IRL.