What do you think? I think mature games shoudn't be played by children younger than 12. But older children have enough thought process to know what's good or wrong unless they were raised in a dysfunctional family and didn't know better.

But generaly I say no.

No.

Simply no.

There was a debate here I remember, maybe in the Swamp...

Originally posted by TK-8252
Simply no.

There was a debate here I remember, maybe in the Swamp...

Yup. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140567)
Was a long while back, so whatever.

If you're out of it enough to break the lines between reality and vitual reality, you shouldn't be in the real world anyway.

There were some studies done in the past few years on this, both reported on here:http://my.webmd.com/content/article/23/1728_56903)

" those who had played more violent video games as teenagers reported engaging in more aggressive behavior. Men exhibited more aggression, and men who are more prone to exhibit aggressive behavior may be even more vulnerable to violent video games, the study found."

And:

"We now know for a fact that playing a violent video game for even a short period of time increases aggressive behavior in the short term," says Anderson, who recently testified before the U.S. Senate on the impact of "interactive" violence on children.

Both studies were published in the primary source of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a peer-reviewed journal.

The WebMD article does, however, conclude with, "[o]bservers say it's still too early to say for sure what the effects of video violence might be. Industry representatives say the study findings don't always translate to the real world."

This 60 Minutes report, by Ed Bradley is also worth reading: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678261.shtml)

I saw that one when it aired.

I can tell you that at WalMart, if you try to buy certain age-restricted merchandise, like video games, CDs and DVDs, the cash register prompts the cashier to check your ID. They have to follow the prompts or risk being fired if discovered selling age-restricted merchandise.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
"...men who are more prone to exhibit aggressive behavior may be even more vulnerable to violent video games." So one could say it's because of their own, natural, aggressive behaviour that they're attracted to the type of game, and not that the game causes it.

And men generally are more aggressive, especially when going through puberty.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
So one could say it's because of their own, natural, aggressive behaviour that they're attracted to the type of game, and not that the game causes it.


Yes, that is a possibility with the first study that I noted as well. But the second study seems to negate that.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
And men generally are more aggressive, especially when going through puberty.

After the students played the video games for a third time, they played another game in which they had to set up a blast of noise that their opponents would hear if they lost. Those who had played the violent video game set the noise blast to last longer than the others, which the researchers interpreted as being more aggressive. Women displayed higher levels of hostility and aggression than did the men.

-- from the second study.

One could also say that most members of a forum (i.e. LucasForums) dedicated mainly to gaming would be naturally biased in favor of gaming and more skeptical of the studies done regardless of what they demonstrate.

There are some other studies, more recent, but I'll have to dig them up. There was also a piece that I remember reading while back that spoke of the number of crimes that have been commited that were either similar to GTA or where the criminals who commited them stated that they got the ideas from GTA... I'll look for that as well.

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Women displayed higher levels of hostility and aggression than did the men. Interesting. And I assume they did take necessary measures to make sure no underlying circumstances were in play.


This does seem to go against everything I witnessed when participating in a test like this.

I'm curious about all the events that took place though and what kind of people these students were.


Second study

The games have similar difficulty levels, so frustration could be ruled out as one cause of aggression. The students played the games three times, in two separate sessions, about a week apart.
The problem with that is some people handle frustration differently.

second study

Those who had played the violent video game set the noise blast to last longer than the others, which the researchers interpreted as being more aggressive. That still doesn't exactly prove they'd become physically violent. Some people can audibly express their frustration and relieve stress, it's actually a common therapeutic treatment.

The problem with their assumption is they think it to be aggressive. But it could just be them releasing their frustration. And aggression doesn't directly mean violence.

I've seen people become equally frustrated from driving, and they've never played a video game in their life. Perhaps driving causes violence.

I just can't find myself (as a rational person, not a gamer) to see a relation between video games and aggressive behaviour, considering it's been around since the beginning of man. I say it all just depends solely on the person.

Thank you, SkinWalker, finally someone else on my side than just me:).

Now if I can only get my psychology book back, it has a neat source in it too, I recall.

As for playing violent/war games at the age of <13, that's a definite no, no matter how innocent and un-realistic the violence looks. It just makes people, especially kids, less sensitive to such things.

The problem with their assumption is they think it to be aggressive. But it could just be them releasing their frustration. And aggression doesn't directly mean violence.
However, aggression is frustration and anger... Acted out.

I've seen people become equally frustrated from driving, and they've never played a video game in their life. Perhaps driving causes violence.
Indeed it does. Ever heard of road rage?

I just can't find myself (...) to see a relation between video games and aggressive behaviour, considering it's been around since the beginning of man (...).
Just that Man has been around longer than video games doesn't mean video games have nothing to do with violence.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Thank you, SkinWalker, finally someone else on my side than just me:).

That is, if your "side" is the side of objective truth, waiting to be discovered by the scientific method." :cool: I can be swayed back the other way by a single study if its methods and results are right.....

That is, if your "side" is the side of [i]objective truth, waiting to be discovered by the scientific method." I can be swayed back the other way by a single study if its methods and results are right.....
That's what I meant. I think.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
However, aggression is frustration and anger... Acted out.

Very well. So that would make many therapeutic treatements, aggression.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Indeed it does. Ever heard of road rage?

Yes. But how many people are genuinely have it?
How do we know people that become violent from video games don't suffer from something like, video rage?

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Just that Man has been around longer than video games doesn't mean video games have nothing to do with violence.
I know. I agree that some people can be affected by it. But video games as a whole I don't think can affect anyone that doesn't already have a pre-disposition to violent behaviour. I take this by what I have seen.

Until I see conclusive evidence to support otherwise, I just can't make myself see a genuine connection.

Even if it's true video games increase aggression, that's totally different from "corruption." If video games really "corrupt" our youth, every GTA player would go out and hijack a bus and rampage through the streets, and no one would show up for school since everyone would be killing eachother. But is this kind of behavior common? Nope. The kind of people who can actually be "corrupted" by video games are already messed up in the head long before they picked up the controller.

I still find it hard to believe that aggression could even be increased. I'm like the most calm person ever and I do nothing but play video games all day every day. Most EVERY guy at school has played some kind of violent M-rated video game, and it's not a warzone.

All of these cases of aggression and video games have never been truly linked together.
Studies tend to ignore any kind of outside influence.
Also, due to ethics, some key studies would never be able to be done.

It is ridiculous to say GTA can cause violence. If I already live in a bad neighborhood, my father is in prison and my mother's a whore, I'll probably end up a thug on the street, whether GTA exists or not.

I made a research about it some time ago and found two articles that were quite interesting:

This one is a bit old but still a good read.
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/sfischo/violence.html)

This one is from Richard Rhodes. It's also quite old, it dates back a few years, but also interesting:
http://www.abffe.com/myth1.htm)

This is from the Jan/Feb 2005 issue of Psychology Today:

Brain

PARENTS HAVE LONG had misgivings about gory video-game scenes, but new research suggests yet another reason to limit time at the joystick.

A study by Adelphi University researchers in New York suggests that long-term video-game use could make boys easily frustrated and impatient. In a pilot study of boys ages 11 to 14, those who had more experience playing the games spent less time working on an unsolvable puzzle, according to researchers Eric Schleifer and Rebecca Curtis.

Schleifer's hypothesis: The control and instant gratification provided by video games make players more impulsive. But he is pursuing a more in-depth study before drawing conclusions. "It may be that kids with lower frustration tolerance, who are more impulsive, are drawn to video games because of the control it offers," he explains.

Schleifer believes his study is the first of its kind. Much psychological research studies a game's content and links to violence or other bad behavior.

The two bolded portions of the quote above show both the correlation as well as the possible problem with the research, that those that are lazy are simply attracted to gaming.

In each of the studies presented thus far on both sides of the issue, the same basic problem of scientific discovery arises: correlation does not automatically imply causation.

In order for the researcher above to determine the causation, he'll need to create a control group, perhaps of inexperienced gamers who he can evaluate initially and then again after they've gained significant experience at gaming.

So is this just gory, violent, fps style games or are these puzzle and strategy games as well? Because I mostly play games in which you need atleast some form of strategy, and I don't suffer from any of those problems. Infact I have an obsessive personality, I refuse to quit.

This is another problem with these studies, they don't really clarify exactly what kind of games.

I play all kinds of games. the most violent ones I can find. I play Hitman and Theif (sneack around kill people one by one) I never actualy went out and hurt anyone.

Even Kids should be able to decipher fantasy from reality.

Luke, thanks for those links. I'll be sure to read them:).

I play all kinds of games. the most violent ones I can find. I play Hitman and Theif (sneack around kill people one by one) I never actualy went out and hurt anyone.

OK, Frog, with all due respect, that proves nothing.

I know a 13 years old boy who survived trying to kill himself by jumping out of his car that was going at 50-60 miles per hour. The guy didn't even break anything. Now, can he go out and advise people to throw themselves at the concrete of Houson highways from cars going at 55? I don't think so.

Can a smoker who hasn't gotten lung cancer say there's no risk of lung cancer because he hasn't gotten it yet? No way, Hosй.

If you want to convince me, you'll need to do better than saying "you're obviously wrong, as it hasn't' happened to me". Show me studies, and I'll read them.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I know a 13 years old boy who survived trying to kill himself by jumping out of his car that was going at 50-60 miles per hour. The guy didn't even break anything. Now, can he go out and advise people to throw themselves at the concrete of Houson highways from cars going at 55? I don't think so.

Can a smoker who hasn't gotten lung cancer say there's no risk of lung cancer because he hasn't gotten it yet? No way, Hosй. That same argument can be said oppositely against your side as well.

Just because a few people have gone nuts, and played video games doesn't mean it directly relates.

I think that there are is an inherent confounding of factors in all of these studies - and that is the changes in society at large.

The initial studies speak of aggression in gamers - yet compares it to the reaction to TV violence, which has been more or less discounted as a causal effect of violence. Ideas, sure. Cause, no.

The other studies speak of instant gratification, and a possible link to aggression and frustration due to difficulty in games. Hasn't our worl society become more and more based around instant gratification and disposable everything?

I have no doubt that in general violent games desensitize people to violence in general, and that in younger kids it provides an outlet that hurts, rather than helps, the building of internal limits of appropriate physical play. For example, after playing Super Smash Brothers, kids might go outside and start whaling on each other much harder, because there is no link to hurting others established in games - and if there is, it is positively rewarded.

Mike

True.

Which is the problem with 95% of this subject... its all based on specific one-off examples. Which statistically don't mean anything.

Those studies surprise me. I have nothing to back them up, but they don't seem right.

Playing wolfenstien 3d three times is enough to make you noticably more violent?

I can MAYBE buy the desensitisation argument as the only long term argument against video games (and other forms of violent entertainment), but surely that would take more than trying it three times to have a noticable effect?

I would have thought that adrenaline was a more likely cause... what with wolf3d being an action games and myst being, well dull.

That and maybe the fact that wolf3d is a game that has you "competing" against people and trying to overcome them, wheras myst is a single person not competing with anyone.
Like comparing the adrenaline, competetiveness and agression of someone doing a crossword with someone playing chess.

Maybe they should have compared Wolf3d with Mario or Tiger Woods or something?

Originally posted by toms
Which is the problem with 95% of this subject... its all based on specific one-off examples. Which statistically don't mean anything.

Those studies surprise me. I have nothing to back them up, but they don't seem right.

Playing wolfenstien 3d three times is enough to make you noticably more violent?

I have some specific problems with some specifics in the methodology of the studies themselves, but by and large, these are problems that the researchers themselves have acknowledged. To date, they've been successful at demonstrating correlations, but when it comes to causation, the research models don't readily lend themselves to testing, which is what they're attempting to figure out.

What I'm saying is, there are valid criticisms of the methodologies, but most gamers and proponents of gaming aren't interested in reading the primary sources and looking at the methodology sections themselves. Instead, they are content with making uninformed statements that include assumptions like the participants of the study played "Wolfenstien 3d three times."

In at least one of the references I cited with a link, there was a very good description of the methodology even though it wasn't from the primary publication (i.e. the peer-reviewed journal).

Simply making blanket assumptions and non-targeted criticisms only lends credance to the point that gamers are biased to gaming and will not objectively review the subject.

But as I said, there are valid criticisms about the methodologies that even the researchers acknowledge.

The problem isn't with the studies, but rather the 'special interest' conclusions drawn.

Who would argue that (a)playing an action filled sport (b) watching an action filled spport or movie or (c) playing an action filled video game do not result in endorphin and adrenaline pumping through your system, having you 'ready for action'?

All of these studies cry out for the need for parents to take greater responsibility for their kids upbringing. When you let your 5 year old play Halo and watch LotR and Matrix, and he goes out on the playground and wants to *really* hit because pretending isn't *real* enough and then bats a kid on the face with a plastic sword leaving him crying and hurt, is it the movie or game-maker's fault?*** No, it shows that the parents have not provided a context for the kid to understand right and wrong, good and bad, and that actions have consequences ...

Mike


***I wish that were a made up example! Let's just say that as a parent, you won't always agree with the parenting of your kids' friends ...

As for the topic, no I don't think video games corrupt "the youth." But video games have ratings on them so I really don't see what the problem is. Your 12 year old kills his best friend performing some stunt in GTA, that's the parent's fault, not GTA. And it really ticks me off when they try to sue video game companies.

The games have ratings. The End.

I read in our city newspaper that the prison had taken uout the game "Hitman" out of the prison because it depicted the guy killing police officers.


I think that's the only logical scene of taking away a video game from some one.


I.S.B.W.B

Originally posted by The Hidden One
I read in our city newspaper that the prison had taken uout the game "Hitman" out of the prison because it depicted the guy killing police officers.


I think that's the only logical scene of taking away a video game from some one.


I.S.B.W.B

I was surprised to read that. What are Inmates doing with video games anyway? Shouldn't they be under punishment? Or are they getting a "free ride" of leisure and play?

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
I was surprised to read that. What are Inmates doing with video games anyway? Shouldn't they be under punishment? Or are they getting a "free ride" of leisure and play? They get free food, free education, free entertainment. It's more of a resort that requires a dress code and you have to return objects such as combs and toothbrushes.


Anyway, it seems to me that only certain types of games are getting this reaction and I think it could actually relate to just the adrenaline pumping and all that. Same as after you play, or even watch, sports.

And technically anything in the real world could create these kinds of reactions, it's up to the individual to manage it, and the parents to help teach the kid proper management of emotions.


PS: Society is all about instant gratification, note American Idol and other "reality" shows. Throw out hard work, just put them on tv and sexy them up. If anything I see it as video games trying to keep up with societal demands.

The only answer one can give to the question "Do video games corrupt our youth?" is "no."

Why? Because video games do not "corrupt" youth automatically, at least not in any way that's measurable or even tangible. Some kids who play violent video games may go on to commit violent acts or be maladjusted, but most will not. Therefore one could answer "yes" to only one question:

"Is it possible that violent video games could have a negative effect on a minority of already psychologically fragile youths?"

Sure.

"Is it possible that violent video games could have a negative effect on a minority of already psychologically fragile youths?"


Big question.



I should of thought of that......:p

Originally posted by InsaneSith
They get free food, free education, free entertainment. It's more of a resort that requires a dress code and you have to return objects such as combs and toothbrushes.

:eek: Yeah. Its just like a holiday!
Kipper: I'd suspect the reason they give them games and things is because having a load of people sitting around 20 hours a day bored and locked in a small space isn't a very good idea.
Come to think of it, its the same principle as a lot of parents who use tv and games to keep their kids occupied and out of trouble... hmmm...

Instead, they are content with making uninformed statements that include assumptions like the participants of the study played "Wolfenstien 3d three times."

I did read the article. And it did say they played wolfenstien 3 times and theior reactions were tested after the third time. Unless i completely missed something. So i don't think my statement was uninformed. (well, for me anyway)

With computer games you are really talking 5 distinct effects:

Desensitisation: I'd agree that long term exposure might cause disensitisation, but this also applies to movies, tv and other art forms.
This also plays into the old "chicken and egg" situation... does art reflect society, or society reflect art?

Adrenaline: Many studies show short term aggression rises after playig games. I'd think that the majority of this would be down to the increased adrenaline you get when taking part in or watching something emotive, fast, exciting or competative. I don't see this as being a major long term problem, or any worse with computer games than any other activity.

Copycats: Many kids tend to copy the actions of people they see on screen (be it in movies or games or tv or football or music). This is undeniable. However i think most kids do it from a copycat perspective, not beacuse the game has somehow "taught" them to do it. I remember kids running around playing "ninja turtles" when i was a kid... which was hardly a particularly violent series. But they were doning it from a fun, immitation angle, not a "wanting to hurt people" angle.
I guess you could have a "don't try this at home" warning at the start of games like on some tv programs, or ban "dangerously immitable techniques" like the british censors do... but to be honest kids don't usually appreciate the consequences of actions until they have tried them out and learnt from them. And in the end it is up to parents to make sure they understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

Over the edge: Do video games trigger dangerous behaviours in unstable individuals? Probably. But i would think that unstable individuals are likely to be triggered by a lot of things. Movies. Music. Road Rage. or even nothing at all. And can we really stop everyone doing something because it might trigger a tiny minority to flip who would probably flip anyway?

Playing a role/association: This is the big one. Does playing the role of a violent character on screen make you more likely to associate with them and duplicate their feelings and actions?

This is what anti-game advocates would have you believe. And its the hardest to prove. On balance i'd say no. I guess you could argue you associate more with a game than a movie as you are controlling the main character... but i still think that once you stop playing the game, after the adrenaline has worn off, you don't still think you are playing that role, or that things you did in that role are still appropriate or acceptable. This is also the only effect that would IMHO mean the games industry was accountable.

---------

But, i admit, all that is based on my own feelings, as i have no research to back it up... and it seems to be contradicted by that research skin pointed to. But that research still just doesn't sound credible to me.

i didn't read any of the replies. :joy:

LOOK AT THE ESRB, mom and dad!!!

a 12 year old should not be playing Halo.

Well, maybe yes to Halo. Frankly, I don't see how Halo gets a mature rating while Republic Commando gets a teen rating.

But games like GTA, Manhunt, etc. should be restricted.

The biggest (and - I would personally claim - only) risks associated with computer gaming are addiction and obesity.

When it comes to TV and video games, addiction has been a largely overlooked issue for many years. The violence thing is, IMO blown out of proportion compared to the health effects of addiction and inactivity.

Originally posted by toms

Kipper: I'd suspect the reason they give them games and things is because having a load of people sitting around 20 hours a day bored and locked in a small space isn't a very good idea.
Prisoner's rights. Nothing to do with entertaining them.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
When it comes to TV and video games, addiction has been a largely overlooked issue for many years. The violence thing is, IMO blown out of proportion compared to the health effects of addiction and inactivity.

But banning them would remove the addiction factor too. It's like hitting two birds with one stone for them.

Its a fair point though.

Though, again, i'd argue it wasn't purely related to video games.

Kids (and adults) can get addicted to almost anything (though a lot of it is genetically predetermined)...

Browsing the internet, porn, tv, video games, golf, wrestling, etc...
I don't rate video games as any worse than anything else, addiction-wise. ANd, with most of these addictions, they tend to last for a while until you burn yourself out and do somethign else.
I spent the last year or two being completely unmoved by games, and as a consequence have a huge back-list of games to play... partly cos they got a bit lazy in game development.. but mainly cos i'd just played to many and the excitement had worn off.

Same happened with TV. I and all my mates used to watch tv from the moment we got home from scholl until we went to bed. These days i probably watch less all week than i would have watched in a night when i was 15.

But the risk of obesity and inactivity in kids today is a much huger factor (and will kill far more people) than a few kids going psyhco with shotguns. But like everything in our media... its the big one-off events that make the news (and therefore teh political agenda) not the less exciting larger effects. :(

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
But banning them would remove the addiction factor too. It's like hitting two birds with one stone for them.

"There is no such thing as 'overkill', only 'undertargetting'."

\end

But the risk of obesity and inactivity in kids today is a much huger factor (and will kill far more people) than a few kids going psyhco with shotguns.

Which is a gun control issue rather than a video-game issue anyway.

well, i was playing a game last night that had me swearing like a sailor, getting incredibly violent and throwing things.

Trying to beat the 50second lap time in Ocarina of Time. Not sure if that proves that games don't have to be filled with blood and gore to make people agressive, or if that is a provably different effect to the one they are talking about.

:mad:

Beat it in the end though :D

No, I dont think It corrupts the mind. Some games actually teach, such as influence and currency systems etc.

_EW_

ok my opion is that yes it is possible for them to corrupt certian people but in general no

well I'm not a youth any more but when I was working in a grocery store I and I had a particular person working with me who just happened to annoy the crap out of me I used to go home pop in halo put it on easy and bash all the covanent with my gun.

I ask you does that make me a bad person? no it doesn't I have seen studies done that indicate that violent games actually calm down kids also though where i saw it I can't remember

Games never calmed me down. I went to them when I wanted to destroy things (because my parents would be mad if I just destroyed the house:D ) and I came out just as irritated about whatever it was.

I also found myself getting rather depressed because I really wasn't doing anything with my life. Now, I don't have any games on my PC and am doing much better for it.



So I guess everybody has a different story.:)

What do you think? I think mature games shoudn't be played by children younger than 12. But older children have enough thought process to know what's good or wrong unless they were raised in a dysfunctional family and didn't know better.

But generaly I say no.

There's been some studies on attention spans being affected by television viewing in very young children. And considering the general level of crap on TV, it's probably a bad idea to let kids watch much TV at all at that age (and then when you do let them, watch with them and inform them, etc).

Kids do imitate what they see and they do do stupid things, but then we often don't give them much credit either. And adults do stupid things as well.

I agree "violent" entertainment media can't be blamed for the acts of already crazy people who claim inspiration, and "think of the children" isn't a blanket excuse for censorship, but parents need to be more responsible with their kids.

If think I have kids I won't let them play video games or watch tv when they're toddlers. But I won't be a jerk about it either (promoting the "oooh it's naughty so I better sneak around behind dad's back!" temptation). I would want to be aware of and discuss with them their media choices. I remember when I was in elementary school a lot of the kids in my class would brag about the "slasher movies" they watched at home on video or on tv. I don't know if any of those kids were "scarred for life" and my parents didn't let me watch that stuff when I was that age. When I got older I watched the stuff and saw it was really no big deal. Most of it was pretty crappy (although the NOTLD series was great, not in the slasher genre of course) and mind-numbing. Kids, especially boys at that age are too easily impressed by gore and profanity.

Games never calmed me down. I went to them when I wanted to destroy things (because my parents would be mad if I just destroyed the house:D ) and I came out just as irritated about whatever it was.

I also found myself getting rather depressed because I really wasn't doing anything with my life. Now, I don't have any games on my PC and am doing much better for it.



So I guess everybody has a different story.:)

They didn't calm you down but they stopped you from destroying the house. Therefore the games did you well, because they diverted your aggression where it can't do any harm.

This is just my opinion, I don't have any evidence to back it up, but I believe that the skater games my brother plays are much more dangerous than 'violent games' such as GTA. As an example, recently he fell off of a tall building and landed on his head, then just stood up as if nothing had happened. Just speculation, but isn't that more dangerous than, as in GTA, you kill someone and they stay dead. The point here being that games like the skater games teach a reality far more removed from our own than GTA.

I don't think he needs Tony Hawk Pro Skater to try out any of those tricks.

And I don't think people need GTA to shoot people. This does not change the fact that skating games, if played by young children, can provide a misleading example of reality. This is also the case with games like GTA, but GTA does not teach that people are invulnerable. However, I agree that parents should moderate what their children play/watch, without being oppresive. This may seem like a fine line, but being a parent is, and always has been, a position of responcibility.

That's not really my point. He could've been watching skater videos or maybe the Lords of Dogtown and started down the skater path. Those things also provide a misleading example of reality.

But I agree that it could be Tony Hawk Pro Skater.

I used to fall off tall things a lot when i was a kid... never did me any harm. *twitch*

Kids are pretty invunerable, and recover from injuries much quicker than grown-ups. Seeing what hurts is part of the way they learn their limits. I know there are loads of kids at the skate park who try things i'd NEVER have the guts to try. Fall on their faces. Get up. Try again. Sigh. I'm getting to old for this...

I would mention that driving a car immediately after playing midtown madness is a very bad idea though. I remember doing that a few years ago, and about 10 minutes later i realised i was still driving like i was in the game, and had to conciously relax, pay attention and slow down. Ooops.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a minor childhood accident relates to falling 50' onto your head. Few children I know would be able to walk away after something like that. Do you know any who could? It wouldn't be so bad if the characters made some attempt to break their falls, as is in the real world.