Hatred is back on Steam Greenlight, Gabe Newell apologies.

[mr moose]

I think there's a clear difference between a game where there's violence and/or innocent people dying and a game where that's the primary and only goal. In most games it's a kill or be killed sort of thing or and even when it's not you're going in there with a specific goal other than just killing all the dudes. Usually your opponents are armed. Even in games like GTA which some people do think goes to far you're playing as a loser or someone who is clearly mentally disturbed. Also in GTA when you do systematically gun down innocent people it's usually not part of a mission and you're always swarmed by cops. The game trailer for this makes it clear that that's not the case, you're literally going out to commit genocide and by the looks of it your character is almost god-like. Very different.

 

Also I do think that when "art" does deal with tragedy there is a point where it becomes inappropriate. The closer to such a tragedy it is the less appropriate it seems. Last week I read about this game and was largely indifferent about it and to an extent I still am. But after what I saw live, all day in my own country this week? I now lean more towards the "maybe it's a bit too much" side of the debate.

 

edit:

As a side note, some of my favourite games of the last couple of years (Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider) have made a point of questioning violent acts. A fact that makes a game that goes well and truly in the other direction even less appealing IMO.

 

There is truth to what you say,  many researchers are still trying to find the links, however what is known is that brain development is effected by both visual violent stimulus and the interactivity of video games.  It stands to reason that the motivational sway of a game will play a role in the likely effects that game has,  ergo killing a person in a war scenario will likely effect brain development and result in a personal  understanding of war and survival, However a game that kills for no other reason than "it's fun" will likely result in a lessened appreciation of mortality and a more aggressive response to conflict.

 

I am keenly waiting further research on this topic, as the outcomes will surely make us rethink what recommendations we make to parents with regard to their child's development and behavioral integration in to the school system.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1056499305000258

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0801_3#.VJM5gXuPU5A

 

 

TL:DR

Video games don't make us violent, but they do effect the way we react to our environment, and this is most pronounced if the games are experienced during behavioral development.

[snes]

Now all we need is a game that lets us molest and slaughter little children, because, you know, it's just a game.

 

On a serious note: Many of the comments in here show how rotten some of you guys are on the inside. Doesn't really surprise me anymore.

[Shadowcat]

Now all we need is a game that lets us molest and slaughter little children, because, you know, it's just a game.

On a serious note: Many of the comments in here show how rotten some of you guys are on the inside. Doesn't really surprise me anymore.

Search long enough I'm sure you'll find a game like that already exists.

BTW insulting people is not nice Mr. Meanie Mai feelz r hertz m8.

[Victorious Secret]

We live in a world where THIS is okay:

So if you're so sensitive about this game, grow up and gain some perspective. 

[coder-guy22296]

I would like to hear your guys opinion 

 

http://strawpoll.me/3216289

[LAwLz]

-snip-

 

TL:DR

Video games don't make us violent, but they do effect the way we react to our environment, and this is most pronounced if the games are experienced during behavioral development.

Let's assume all that is true, why would that matter when the game is rated for 17+?

 

 

Now all we need is a game that lets us molest and slaughter little children, because, you know, it's just a game.

 

On a serious note: Many of the comments in here show how rotten some of you guys are on the inside. Doesn't really surprise me anymore.

Already exists. Some of them are pretty good actually (SFW) (again, assuming you can call visual novels "games"). If that makes me rotten to the core then that's okay with me.

I'd rather be rotten to the core than someone who tries to dictate what other people should/shouldn't be allowed to enjoy.

[coder-guy22296]

So then why did he do it in the first place?

 

I don't buy the "I didn't know anything about it" statement at all. Sounds like utter damage control.

I think a small group of people within valve removed the game without proper aproval and then gabe found out and looked into it........

[Lewellyn]

There is truth to what you say,  many researchers are still trying to find the links, however what is known is that brain development is effected by both visual violent stimulus and the interactivity of video games.  It stands to reason that the motivational sway of a game will play a role in the likely effects that game has,  ergo killing a person in a war scenario will likely effect brain development and result in a personal  understanding of war and survival, However a game that kills for no other reason than "it's fun" will likely result in a lessened appreciation of mortality and a more aggressive response to conflict.

 

I am keenly waiting further research on this topic, as the outcomes will surely make us rethink what recommendations we make to parents with regard to their child's development and behavioral integration in to the school system.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1056499305000258

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0801_3#.VJM5gXuPU5A

 

 

TL:DR

Video games don't make us violent, but they do effect the way we react to our environment, and this is most pronounced if the games are experienced during behavioral development.

 

"However a game that kills for no other reason than "it's fun" will likely result in a lessened appreciation of mortality and a more aggressive response to conflict."

- gotta love the purest conjecture void of all knowledge of already proven sociological + psychological concepts.

 

I've played tons of violent video games and watched tons of violent movies when I was pre-13, and I still find violence to be disgusting and brutal. Instead, I've seen children cry, scream, and beat each other over games of minecraft, monopoly, and battleship.

 

The causal link has time and time again been proven to be false, and not only that, the desensitization that has been proven true is applicable to any other form of stimulus in media (News, T.V., Books, Movies) and has not been linked to any increased aggression. Children are not prone to any more aggression because they are playing a violent video game, rather than the fact they are children. This skewing of sociology and psychology is so backwards.

 

Anyways, this game isn't meant for children, so I find this kind of arm chair pandering to illiterate, soccer mom SJW's incredibly annoying.

[MonkeyFace]

So if you're so sensitive about this game, grow up and gain some perspective. 

 

It must be nice to live in Canada. This sort of shooting rampage in Hatred is almost a semi-annual to an annual event in the U.S. Why wouldn't people feel uncomfortable or sensitive about a real world issue being played out in a video game?

[skywake]

and that is what it really boils down to. Your opinion. Inapproriate is very subjective. One mans trash is another's treasure.

The only way to deal with that is to let everything and anything come to fruition. Let the people decide what they want to consume/experience.

no one is forcing anyone to experience the game.

don't tell me your next argument is "it's for the children"

 

and lobbying to have it removed from the face of the planet because you don't like it is extreme.

Again, I'm not saying the game should be banned I'm just saying I have a lot of sympathy for that argument and I wouldn't lose any sleep if it was. And don't try and turn me into that person because that's not at all what I am. Being not that person is about 80% of my political ideology, the internet filter from a few years ago here and the mandatory data retention? That's the sort of crap that gets me into protest mode more than anything else. Not a stupid game being released. Hell, I was this close to voting for the Wikileaks party in the last election until I remembered I could already vote for someone who better fit the bill and that wikileaks put parties who wouldn't defend what I assumed were their ideals ahead of him.

 

All I was saying was that clearly there is a point where content does become inappropriate. It is subjective but there is a point. Also that people pretending that anything goes are kidding themselves. There are shades of everything and I reckon there is a point where not publishing and giving money to vile crap is more important than maintaining your political idealism. The fact that the line is apparently nowhere to be seen when there appears to be a thunderous agreement that it is vile crap is the bit that I think is surprising. The fact that people think the events in Sydney and Pakistan this week shouldn't change things at all is even more surprising. Have we become that immune to this?

[WolfDeville]

Fuck yea, I love Gabe

 

REALLY cannot wait to play this

[Lewellyn]

Again, I'm not saying the game should be banned I'm just saying I have a lot of sympathy for that argument and I wouldn't lose any sleep if it was. And don't try and turn me into that person because that's not at all what I am. Being not that person is about 80% of my political ideology, the internet filter from a few years ago here and the mandatory data retention? That's the sort of crap that gets me into protest mode more than anything else. Not a stupid game being released. Hell, I was this close to voting for the Wikileaks party in the last election until I remembered I could already vote for someone who better fit the bill and that wikileaks put parties who wouldn't defend what I assumed were their ideals ahead of him.

 

All I was saying was that clearly there is a point where content does become inappropriate. It is subjective but there is a point. Also that people pretending that anything goes are kidding themselves. There are shades of everything and I reckon there is a point where not publishing and giving money to vile crap is more important than maintaining your political idealism. The fact that the line is apparently nowhere to be seen when there appears to be a thunderous agreement that it is vile crap is the bit that I think is surprising. The fact that people think the events in Sydney and Pakistan this week shouldn't change things at all is even more surprising. Have we become that immune to this?

 

No, you're quite disturbed if you think that the events in Sydney and Pakistan have anything to do with how fictional media should be published. People realize the difference between reality and fiction, maybe you need some pills for that to happen for yourself.

[mr moose]

Let's assume all that is true, why would that matter when the game is rated for 17+?

 

part of the further research they are doing. 

 

EDIT: anything we do on a repetitive level can change the way our brains are wired, here is a classic example.  because uni students are typically over 18 It's proof that the malleability of our mind is still influenced by a cognitive environment.  There is nothing to say the same automated responses can't be triggered by any other form of stimuli.  It's not proof, just research that leads us to not dismiss what we think we know and ask more questions.

 

"However a game that kills for no other reason than "it's fun" will likely result in a lessened appreciation of mortality and a more aggressive response to conflict."

- gotta love the purest conjecture void of all knowledge of already proven sociological + psychological concepts.

 

I've played tons of violent video games and watched tons of violent movies when I was pre-13, and I still find violence to be disgusting and brutal. Instead, I've seen children cry, scream, and beat each other over games of minecraft, monopoly, and battleship.

 

The causal link has time and time again been proven to be false, and not only that, the desensitization that has been proven true is applicable to any other form of stimulus in media (News, T.V., Books, Movies) and has not been linked to any increased aggression. Children are not prone to any more aggression because they are playing a violent video game, rather than the fact they are children. This skewing of sociology and psychology is so backwards.

 

Anyways, this game isn't meant for children, so I find this kind of arm chair pandering to illiterate, soccer mom SJW's incredibly annoying.

 

You miss understand, and probably didn't read the articles I linked.  All cognitive experiences effect the development of the the brain and lead to behavioral outcomes. This is not conjecture and not up for debate, it is one of the known fundamental underpinnings of development and has been proven.  

 

The question is what are the triggers? why is there a correlation between children who witness violence both in reality and on the screen experiences of higher rates of behavioral issues along with anxiety?  Also the question begs why some people are more effected than others?   Is there a biological condition that makes some people more suitable to behavioral changes as a result of limited stimuli?  Until these questions are answered it doesn't make sense to dismiss the entire research as conjecture or pandering to soccer mums.   

 

 

 

Video games don't make us violent, but they do effect the way we react to our environment, and this is most pronounced if the games are experienced during behavioral development.

 

 

 

The hardest part about this topic is that it is not simple and the majority of those on this forum have not got the skills/education required to understand what it all means.  People take the one bit that supports there emotional state (usually video games don't make you violent) and use that as the over arching argument to dismiss all other considerations.  It's almost like dismissing smoking as cancerous because you know someone who smoked but didn't get cancer.

 

And @Victorious Secret Is right, there is just so much more that is wrong with humanity,  yet people get there nickers in a knot over this.  I'm keen to learn more about it, but If I want to put my efforts into stopping something, it's going to be on well researched grounds, or its going to be stopping something that actually has a negative impact on humanity. 

[Lewellyn]

You miss understand, and probably didn't read the articles I linked.  All cognitive experiences effect the development of the the brain and lead to behavioral outcomes. This is not conjecture and not up for debate, it is one of the known fundamental underpinnings of development and has been proven.  

 

The question is what are the triggers? why is there a correlation between children who witness violence both in reality and on the screen experiences of higher rates of behavioral issues along with anxiety?  Also the question begs why some people are more effected than others?   Is there a biological condition that makes some people more suitable to behavioral changes as a result of limited stimuli?  Until these questions are answered it doesn't make sense to dismiss the entire research as conjecture or pandering to soccer mums.   

 

The hardest part about this topic is that it is not simple and the majority of those on this forum have not got the skills/education required to understand what it all means.  People take the one bit that supports there emotional state (usually video games don't make you violent) and use that as the over arching argument to dismiss all other considerations.  It's almost like dismissing smoking as cancerous because you know someone who smoked but didn't get cancer.

 

And @Victorious Secret Is right, there is just so much more that is wrong with humanity,  yet people get there nickers in a knot over this.  I'm keen to learn more about it, but If I want to put my efforts into stopping something, it's going to be on well researched grounds, or its going to be stopping something that actually has a negative impact on humanity. 

 

Please stop telling someone who has been through several sociology and psychology courses what they do and do not know about correlative and causation evidence when it comes to brain development in young minds.

 

The first link requires that I purchase the full text for 30 dollars, and the front preview only concludes that a lot of games that middle school adolescents play and primarily prefer games with some sort of violence.

 

The second link also requires that I purchase the full text for 40 dollars, and the front preview only half-handedly gives a very basic rundown of what areas of the brain were activated (tested by using fMRI) it then proceeds to offer up ambiguous conjecture without any citation or cross-referencing of any sort "This pattern of brain activations may explain the behavioral effects observed in many studies, especially the finding that children who are frequent viewers of TV violence are more likely to behave aggressively."

 

So forgive me if I dismiss what you obviously just googled.

 

It's rather annoying that you bring up the 'intent of the game' "However a game that kills for no other reason than "it's fun" will likely result in a lessened appreciation of mortality and a more aggressive response to conflict."  when you use a source that talks about T.V. violence, which has nothing to do with the impact of assuming the role of a character in a game.

 

"All cognitive experiences effect the development of the the brain and lead to behavioral outcomes."

 

Incorrect. Take an actual sociology class or a psychology class instead of this one line pseudo-science. Or better yet, go and look up the moral panic over comic books in the 1950's and the moral panic over the death race game in the 1970's.

 

edit: forgot to the address the stupidity of the "oh no you can't use anecdotal evidence" part of what you said. "It's almost like dismissing smoking as cancerous because you know someone who smoked but didn't get cancer." Except that the majority of people who play violent video games don't become violent in any societal impacting way and most likely is not the main cause, people who play video games with sexism do not become sexists, people who play games with murder do not become murderers. For every study you could bring up trying to show a correlation I would have tenfold of sociological studies showing income, religion, familial relations, and governmental authority that are far more likely to a be root of the issue.

[skywake]

No, you're quite disturbed if you think that the events in Sydney and Pakistan have anything to do with how fictional media should be published. People realize the difference between reality and fiction, maybe you need some pills for that to happen for yourself.

Which is why they went ahead with all those terrorist movies immediately after 9/11. It's why no comedian has ever gotten in hot water for making a joke about something the week of such an event. "Too soon?" isn't something that anyone has ever said after a loud moan from the audience. I mean really, are you serious? So you're saying I can't feel even slightly uncomfortable about content that glorifies those sort of crimes immediately after such events have unfolded without being the crazy cat lady version of Jack Thompson thumping their bibles while bowing to a photo of Anita Sarkeesian? Did you really need to go that route?

 

If you want to know why people still think gaming is for kids, perhaps it's because we can't manage to behave like adults.

[Lewellyn]

Which is why they went ahead with all those terrorist movies immediately after 9/11. It's why no comedian has ever gotten in hot water for making a joke about something the week of such an event. "Too soon?" isn't something that anyone has ever said after a loud moan from the audience. I mean really, are you serious? So you're saying I can't feel even slightly uncomfortable about content that glorifies those sort of crimes immediately after such events have unfolded without being the crazy cat lady version of Jack Thompson thumping their bibles while bowing to a photo of Anita Sarkeesian? Did you really need to go that route?

 

If you want to know why people still think gaming is for kids, perhaps it's because we can't manage to behave like adults.

 

The game is in no way an actual portrayal of any real world event. The reason why you try to say as such is beyond my understanding of stupidity. It doesn't glorify anything and yes, if you think it does, you are mentally disturbed and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[skywake]

The game is in no way an actual portrayal of any real world event. The reason why you try to say as such is beyond my understanding of stupidity. It doesn't glorify anything and yes, if you think it does, you are mentally disturbed and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

The dude literally goes out and says he's going out to commit a genocide and there's zero retribution in the game for that. From the trailer they instead make the main protagonist into a god of sorts. If you think I'm mentally disturbed thinking that that sort of sentiment hits a nerve after literally seeing my fellow Australians being shot in the head by a madman live on TV? Then I don't know what else I can add to this conversation. Maybe in the US you have become very immune to that sort of thing but for me it's still pretty raw and I don't ever want it to not be so. So please, kindly stop with the suggestions that I am mentally disturbed for even considering to entertain this thought.

 

And again, I never said this game should be banned and I never said it would inspire those sort of events. I just said that I wouldn't shed a tear if it was banned, that I understand why some people would want it banned and that I don't want any part of a game that makes light of that sort of event.

[Lewellyn]

The dude literally goes out and says he's going out to commit a genocide and there's zero retribution in the game for that. From the trailer they instead make the main protagonist into a god of sorts. If you think I'm mentally disturbed thinking that that sort of sentiment hits a nerve after literally seeing my fellow Australians being shot in the head by a madman live on TV? Then I don't know what else I can add to this conversation. Maybe in the US you have become very immune to that sort of thing but for me it's still pretty raw and I don't ever want it to not be so. So please, kindly stop with the suggestions that I am mentally disturbed for even considering to entertain this thought.

 

And again, I never said this game should be banned and I never said it would inspire those sort of events. I just said that I wouldn't shed a tear if it was banned, that I understand why some people would want it banned and that I don't want any part of a game that makes light of that sort of event.

 

Again, not a portrayal of real world events. The game has nothing to do with the madman in Australia.

 

If you think I'm mentally disturbed thinking that that sort of sentiment hits a nerve after literally seeing my fellow Australians being shot in the head by a madman live on TV? Not what I said. You said, "The fact that people think the events in Sydney and Pakistan this week shouldn't change things at all is even more surprising." I replied, "you're quite disturbed if you think that the events in Sydney and Pakistan have anything to do with how fictional media should be published." What you said implies that you think that things have to be censored because of the events that have nothing to do with what is being published.

 

I'm really quite surprised at how outlandish the claims you make about the game are. Have YOU actually seen the trailer? No. Obviously not. That would take some brainpower.

 

It looks exactly like some stupid goth-emo love child of angst and boring gore. The characters name is 'The Antagonist' and the game hardly paints him to be the good guy. It's a stupid top down shooter trying to be incredibly edgy with a deranged killer. Who is more dangerous to society, the fictitious, exaggerated sociopath or the overly sensitive real world idiots? 

[skywake]

Again, not a portrayal of real world events. The game has nothing to do with the madman in Australia. I'm really quite surprised at how outlandish the claims you make about the game are.

I never said it was. All I said did was respond to someone who asked what made this game "inappropriate". The fact that it is so close to those sort of events is what makes it inappropriate. And again, I never said it should be banned and I never advocated for it being banned. I just said that I can understand why some people would want it banned. And whether you like it or not the events of the last week have made me and I assume others think less of this game, that's just how it is.

 

Have YOU actually seen the trailer? No. Obviously not. That would take some brainpower.

I did watch the trailer. I watched it last week and again yesterday. If you want me to take your point of view seriously perhaps consider the possibility that people can have a different point of view without being idiots. Maybe you could start by actually reading my posts in full and in context before responding. I mean if you're going to accuse me of not understanding the context of this game you should at least understand the context of my posts. Just a thought.

 

It looks exactly like some stupid goth-emo love child of angst and boring gore. The characters name is 'The Antagonist' and the game hardly paints him to be the good guy. It's a stupid top down shooter trying to be incredibly edgy with a deranged killer. Who is more dangerous to society, the fictitious, exaggerated sociopath or the overly sensitive real world idiots? 

I never said this game was dangerous and I don't think either of these things are particularly dangerous. All I said was that it's tasteless and that I can understand why some would want it banned. The fact that the main character is some emo dick doesn't really change anything. It's still the same action being portrayed. The creators of this game clearly intended to create as much controversy as possible by trying to hit a nerve, that was their intent. So to say that I'm an idiot for saying that it hits a nerve? Did you miss the bit where that's their intent?

[Lewellyn]

-whole wall of bullshit-

 

No, you need to learn how to read.

[skywake]

[mr moose]

Please stop telling someone who has been through several sociology and psychology courses what they do and do not know about correlative and causation evidence when it comes to brain development in young minds.

 

The first link requires that I purchase the full text for 30 dollars, and the front preview only concludes that a lot of games that middle school adolescents play and primarily prefer games with some sort of violence.

 

The second link also requires that I purchase the full text for 40 dollars, and the front preview only half-handedly gives a very basic rundown of what areas of the brain were activated (tested by using fMRI) it then proceeds to offer up ambiguous conjecture without any citation or cross-referencing of any sort "This pattern of brain activations may explain the behavioral effects observed in many studies, especially the finding that children who are frequent viewers of TV violence are more likely to behave aggressively."

 

So forgive me if I dismiss what you obviously just googled.

 

It's rather annoying that you bring up the 'intent of the game' "However a game that kills for no other reason than "it's fun" will likely result in a lessened appreciation of mortality and a more aggressive response to conflict."  when you use a source that talks about T.V. violence, which has nothing to do with the impact of assuming the role of a character in a game.

 

"All cognitive experiences effect the development of the the brain and lead to behavioral outcomes."

 

Incorrect. Take an actual sociology class or a psychology class instead of this one line pseudo-science. Or better yet, go and look up the moral panic over comic books in the 1950's and the moral panic over the death race game in the 1970's.

 

edit: forgot to the address the stupidity of the "oh no you can't use anecdotal evidence" part of what you said. "It's almost like dismissing smoking as cancerous because you know someone who smoked but didn't get cancer." Except that the majority of people who play violent video games don't become violent in any societal impacting way and most likely is not the main cause, people who play video games with sexism do not become sexists, people who play games with murder do not become murderers. For every study you could bring up trying to show a correlation I would have tenfold of sociological studies showing income, religion, familial relations, and governmental authority that are far more likely to a be root of the issue.

 

Wow, you really don't get it.    The exact state of our behaviour is literally built on our experiences, to say otherwise is ludicrously ignorant.

[Lewellyn]

Wow, you really don't get it.    The exact state of our behaviour is literally built on our experiences, to say otherwise is ludicrously ignorant.

 

Ignorant? No, I understand what differences there are between the assumptions of cognitive psychology and behavioral psychology and you apparently do not. Maybe you should google "I am right and this guy is a buffoon for actually taking courses on the matter I am debating with him" again?

[mr moose]

Ignorant? No, I understand what differences there are between the assumptions of cognitive psychology and behavioral psychology and you apparently do not. Maybe you should google "I am right and this guy is a buffoon for actually taking courses on the matter I am debating with him" again?

yeah right, sure you take courses,  high school psychology doesn't count.

 

Here are some more "assumptions" for you to criticize:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600470/

http://www.healthline.com/health/aggressive-behavior#Overview1

http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-therapy.html

 

I have kept away from peer reviewed articles because apparently even though you are studying it you don't have an academic subscription.

 

 

And here is some articles showing how repeated exposure to certain stimuli changes our brain function (AKA social conditioning).

 

http://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/earth-to-gamer-come-in-gamer-video-games-are-warping-your-view-of-reality/story-e6frfrt9-1226142341412

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/11674/20140731/game-transfer-phenomena-when-gamers-hear-sounds-in-their-head.htm

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/09/30/226820044/phantom-phone-vibrations-so-common-they-ve-changed-our-brains

 

EDIT: and because you seem to be stuck on cognition I thought I better link that too, it is the entire set of mental functions that determine how we function.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition

[Lewellyn]

yeah right, sure you take courses,  high school psychology doesn't count.

 

Here are some more "assumptions" for you to criticize:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600470/

http://www.healthline.com/health/aggressive-behavior#Overview1

http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-therapy.html

 

I have kept away from peer reviewed articles because apparently even though you are studying it you don't have an academic subscription.

 

 

And here is some articles showing how repeated exposure to certain stimuli changes our brain function (AKA social conditioning).

 

http://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/earth-to-gamer-come-in-gamer-video-games-are-warping-your-view-of-reality/story-e6frfrt9-1226142341412

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/11674/20140731/game-transfer-phenomena-when-gamers-hear-sounds-in-their-head.htm

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/09/30/226820044/phantom-phone-vibrations-so-common-they-ve-changed-our-brains

 

 

Do you just not understand publication bias? or are you being willfully ignorant to that?

 

Here is an article talking about meta-data analysis of such studies. http://www.pcgamer.com/violence-and-videogames-we-look-at-the-studies-cited-in-the-aftermath-of-sandy-hook/

 

I'm almost curious to ask what institution is daring to give you a damn degree.