"The Video Games are the Root of All Society's Problems"

[Bioture]

Video games does desensitize me, but It doesnt make me wanna kill stuff... i hope.

[RabbitRapist]

my mum hates my pc, but if she unplugs mine, hers wont work.

-RR

$ I OWN MY MUM

[Fit of Rage]

Originally posted by sTuPiD-gErBiL
no. much like the people who commit crimes after viewing violent movies/games, the real blame lies with the lack of maturity and common sense of the individual.

Truth be told.

[Pearl Jam]

When I was 5 years old, I thought all the boxers on Mike Tyson's Punch Out were real-life boxers.

Even the bubble-gum colored Soda Pop Inski.

[Mr. Peanuts]

thats all bullshit.

these assholes have to properly distinguish between fantasy and real life.

i play loads of games and i dont go around killing people ffs.

[Gencore]

I play lots of video games and it's fun. They make me strong and fuel my lust to butcher stuff...in the beginning it was bad but after a couple of months, when i started to run out of places to hide the bodies i slowed down, so i would not say it's the video games, it's the free space around you that compells you to kill

[Dayz V@mp!re]

I'd hate to have that bitch for a mom

[bloodzombie]

I can't believe nobody's mentioned the parents' responsibility.

If you took a toddler, and locked him in a room with monitors showing violence, and only gave him violent video games to play, and movies to watch, when you let him out in 20 years, chances are, he'd kill people

Take that same kid, that violent stuff still available to him, but he's in a regular house with loving parents who guide him and he won't be killing anyone, because he knows right and wrong.

locking the kid in a cabin is extreme, but the truth remains that a lot of parents work so many hours to afford their suburban american dream that they ignore their responsibilities as parents. And kids can only learn what they're exposed to.

[Liquid Blue]

Good stuff Blood, that's basically how I feel ( and said earlier). The games won't make a person violent, that's just an excuse for poor parenting. If you can't teach your kid the difference between good and bad, between fantasy and reality than you shouldn't be a parent at all. Much less be a parent that tries to pass off the blame to a videogame company/industry.

[ÆNIMA]

"If video games really had such an impact on our society, then like PacMan...many more of us would be running around in dark rooms eating magic pills and listening to repetitive music."

[Liquid Blue]

That would own.

[Liquid Blue]

Actually that sounds like a raver party to me.

[ÆNIMA]

Good, you found the irony. That's off a T-shirt btw.

[Live-Wire]

The Effects of Violent Video Games on Children
by [Removed my real name, inserted Live-Wire]

Violent video games provide an important interactive experience for children, and provide the young with the attributes they need to survive growing up in our troubled world. As such, violent video games should not be further restricted or banned by politicians. Many experts have devoted countless hours of research into discovering the effects that violent video games have on youths. The results of the research vary. Some experts argue that video games increase aggression and desensitize the young. They provide statistical and logical arguments that persuasively emphasize their points, but make a flawed assumption; just because high levels of aggression are linked with violent video games does not mean that one causes the other. Violent video games do not increase aggression in children. A smaller group of experts argue that video games are not more influential on children than other aspects of media, such as: movies, television, and specifically the news. These experts also mention some of the positive aspects of video games. The “suspension of disbelief,” or the emersion into an imaginary world, is an important part of development in youth. In the specific genre of internet games, “… gaming sessions indicate the need for strong social togetherness, and thus, are often venues for the strongest experiences” (Manninen 8). These violent games that are played over the internet can serve as a social experience, giving children contact to each other in the comfort of their homes. Some of the experts who renounce violent video games make several assumptions. They assume that “[…] young people [are] passive and uncritical consumers who are easily led” (Beavis 3). Some experts also assume a cause-and-effect relationship between aggression and violent video games. This is not the case – I believe children who play violent video games are already more aggressive than children who chose to pursue other forms of entertainment. They are drawn to violent video games because they are predisposed to violence. Those experts who argue that violence in video games desensitizes the young assume desensitization as a negative attribute. With the news reporting murders daily, war in the Middle East, terrorism, and street violence, desensitization should be a welcomed relief from the stress an average American youth must deal with on a daily basis. Since the beginning of video games, the topic of the effects of violent video games on children has been controversial.
Emerging as early as 1980, violent video games are a very recent addition to the entertainment world – a reason for so little definitive research being available on their ramifications. In the early days of video games, violence was a non-factor due to limitations on the technology; the graphics looked like cartoons, not real life (U.S. Dept. of Energy). The first video game was invented in 1958 by Williams Higinbotham, a simple game called “Tennis for Two” that emulated a simply game of tennis (U.S. Dept. of Energy). Other early games included Pac-Man and Space Invaders – neither game showing violence against humans. In the early 1980s came games like “Wolfenstein”. In “Wolfenstein,” the player tries to escape a prison camp, and kills Nazis along the way. Since then, violent video games have become more and more realistic in the quality of their graphics and storyline. In recent years emerged the multi-player game called “Counter-Strike”, playable with dozens of other people over the internet. This game pits half the players as terrorists and the other half as counter-terrorists. The content is similar, but the graphics are more realistic. It is this level of visual realism that troubles so many experts. With the advances in computer technology being made in leaps and bounds, the graphical realism of games is exponentially rising. Recent games, such as “Soldiers of Fortune” show body parts, decapitation, and other very realistic effects, such as visual wounds, depending on where an enemy is shot. Many researchers, journalists, and politicians have begun questioning the ramifications of this realistic level of graphical violence.
Violent video games do not increase aggression in children. Several studies show that there is, however, a correlation between violent video games and aggression (Lin and Lepper). This means that people who play violent video games are, on the average, more aggressive people than those who do not play the games. Just because there is a correlation between two variables does not mean there is a cause and effect relationship. While some of the experts conclude that violence in video games causes increased aggression, it is just as likely that high levels of aggression cause an interest in violent video games: “[…] causal statements are risky at best. It could be that the obtained video game violence links to aggressive and nonaggressive delinquency are wholly due to the fact that highly aggressive individuals are especially attracted to violent video games” (Anderson and Dill 778). Aggressive individuals having an attraction to violent games would also explain why only some individuals who play violent video games demonstrate a high level of aggression, not all of them. Also just as likely is that a third variable affects both levels of aggression and interest in violent games. Anderson and Dill point out, “[…] none of these studies can rule out the possibility that key variables such as excitement, difficulty, or enjoyment created the observed increase in aggression” (776). Anderson and Dill are right, and if violent video games are more attractive to aggressive individuals, so are games such as “Cowboys and Indians” or other common aggressive childhood games. Further restriction of violent video games is no more feasible than preventing children from playing simple competitive childhood games.
“Third variables” are what cause both an interest in violent games and a high level of aggression. Violent video games are still games, meaning that children play them to get a sense of enjoyment, excitement or fun. Children can get similar feelings from being aggressive – specifically feelings of excitement. If it is the case that excitement is the third variable causing increased aggression as well as interest in violent video games, then the video games cannot be blamed. To suggest that removing a violent video game from a child would prevent him from becoming overly excited, and therefore aggressive, can not be a good solution. There are still countless exciting activities that children participate in, from physical activities to board games, which create the same excitement. To remove those activities would be out of the question – it would be a sterile and uninteresting atmosphere for the child to grow up in.

[post too long, continues in next post]

[Live-Wire]

Even if aggression was increased by exposure to violent media, violent video games would not be more dangerous to children than other forms of media. Movies show violence and gore far more realistic than the current technology of video games. However, even movie violence is less realistic than the most likely method of desensitization in media – the news. The most popular stories in the news are those of violence. This is the ultimately realistic medium for children to learn about violence. Since 1990, murders in the United States have gone down fourfold, but reports of murders have gone up 1,500% (Bowling for Columbine). Turning on the news, one is also bombarded by reports of the war with Iraq and of the latest terrorist threats. Also told every week are stories of people stocking up on necessities in case of Armageddon. Children who watch the news see images of typical Americans buying gas masks. Some experts still argue that video games are more likely to affect children. Anderson and Dill suggest that “the active nature of the learning environment of the video game suggests that this medium is potentially more dangerous than the more heavily investigated TV and movie media” (787). This statement is not true because it underestimates children’s sense of reality, and suggests that children spend more time playing video games than watching television, when the opposite is true. “A recent survey discovered that children spend more time watching televisions than they do in school, that is, 25 hours per week […] This amount of viewing translates to a conservative estimate of over 12,000 violent acts per year witnessed on television […]” (Emes 410). While this survey may not be indicative of children everywhere, or of the content of the television those children watch, the survey shows that the evidence available indicates that television is addictive, more so than video games. The assumption is still made by many experts, parents, and politicians, for both television and video games, that children are not aware of the difference between their games and reality.
Children are predominantly intelligent consumers who can tell the difference between reality and fantasy – games cannot persuade them to act out heinous crimes. While there is a necessity to be protective of children, there is a “[… skepticism] about young people as passive and uncritical consumers who are easily led …” (Beavis 3). There are, unfortunately, some most notable exceptions. Eric Harris and his friend shot and killed 14 classmates and a teacher, wounding 23 others before killing themselves at Columbine High School. Fourteen year old Michael Carneal shot and killed 3 students, wounding 5 others in Kentucky. In Germany, a nineteen year old named Robert Steinhauser shot and killed 13 teachers, 2 students, a police officer, and then himself. A common link between all of these young men was that they were addicted to violent video games (Sanchez and Bach 4). This is some disturbingly powerful evidence. However, more powerful is the evidence that in 1998, the number of video games sold in the United States alone topped 159 million, with 14.2 billion dollars being earned worldwide from the sale of video games (U.S. Dept. of Energy). The vast majority of violent video game players do not engage in fatally violent behavior. For example, according to Anderson and Bushman, “[…] the fact that some highly publicized school killings were committed by individuals who habitually played violent video games is not strong evidence that violent video games increase aggression” (353). The majority of young consumers are capable of telling the difference between what is appropriate in fantasy, and what is allowed in reality, or what is right and what is wrong:
“Nelson (1980) showed 3-year-olds pictures of a child throwing a ball at another
child and explained that the child was either (a) playing catch with the other child or (b) angry at the other child. When asked to judge the “goodness” or “badness” of the child’s ball throwing, even preschoolers could consider the child’s intentions, and they correctly states that the child in (b) was being “bad””
(Roediger, et al. 398).
This study by Nelson shows that even children too young to be physically capable of playing violent video games can tell the difference between right and wrong. Their sense of reality is not completely reshaped later by games. While some experts would say that any effect from a violent video game on the aggressiveness of children is dangerous, there is no doubt that other dangerous events effect children and are not restricted by law – children can be drastically affected by their parents divorcing, for example. Video games do not directly cause violence.
Although video games do not cause violence, some experts suggest they may facilitate it. Violent video games, specifically “First Person Shooters ”, teach players how to shoot guns and kill. Games such as “Counter-Strike” teach children that the most efficient way to kill someone is to shoot them in the head. Michael Carneal, the Kentucky school shooter, had never held a real gun before in his life, but shot his victims with uncanny accuracy (Rich 1). This argument is not very persuasive, because the vast majority of players of violent video games do not act out their video games experiences in real life. While these arguments show that these games do not directly lead to real violence, they may cause desensitization to real violence.
While desensitization may be a result of prolonged exposure to violent video games, the assumption that desensitization is inherently negative is incorrect. Desensitization renders someone less responsive to a stimulus they have been repeatedly exposed to. One could interpret this as a higher likelihood to do harm to others, but that is a false assumption. Desensitization can have a positive affect on children. With the high level of violence in the news, and possibility of dangers in real life in the form of muggers, gang violence, terrorist attacks, or other forms, the every day environment becomes less stressful and frightening if one is less responsive to violent stimuli. The United States government was very adamant about saying that America would not live in a state of fear following the September 11th terrorist attacks. Desensitization, by making children less responsive to violent stimuli, succeeds in preventing children from living in a state of fear. The United States Army recently produced a game called “Americas Army” which brings a new level of realism to violent video games. The realism is not on the graphical level, as people who are killed usually just fall to the ground without any blood – as opposed to “Counter-Strike” where a shot to the head will spray blood everywhere. The game is realistic because it was specifically designed to be realistic by the people who know what war is like – the Army. Desensitization is an important tool used by the military to teach soldiers what it is like to kill, so that when they must do so in a real battle they are capable. Some parents, politicians, and experts believe that teaching children to be desensitized to violence is terrible. However, there are just as many parents, politicians, and experts who believe every American has a right to defend them selves.
Some video games may teach how to fire a weapon, but many of those same video games also teach important life lessons in teamwork. Children grow up to be adults who will mostly likely participate in the work force. Many jobs, especially those in the business world, require team work. In many violent internet first person shooter video games, such as “America’s Army” and “Counter-Strike,” players working by themselves are unable to accomplish the missions set before them. By working in teams, they are capable of completing objectives that exceed their personal abilities. This is an important lesson in how to cooperate with others. “Playing well with others” is stressed so much in the schools and daily life of nearly every child. Video games involving teammate are an educational tool on problem solving. Tony Manninen explains that “[Counter-Strike games] are usually won by the teams who utilize some sort of coordination” (7). One could argue that the coordination is simply because of the situation the game forces children into, and that no life lesson is learned. However, “An additional interesting finding was the increase of interactions when the significance of the game increased. There was clearly a strong correlation between the amount of team interactions and importance of the game” (Manninen 8). If the level of significance of the game has an effect on how much communication is made between the players, when the significance is amplified to a real life situation, the communication and teamwork would be amplified as well.
Both normal and violent video games provide an important source of entertainment and social interaction for children, relying largely on the “suspension of disbelief.” The real mechanics behind a game are simple – the player sits looking at a screen and interacting with the objects on that screen. The player is still in his or her own home, or other location where they are playing the game. The same principle that engrosses so many in their favorite television shows or soap operas gives players the impression that they are actually physically within their game world. According to Manninen, “[…] the suspension of disbelief seems to be the general phenomenon in the entertainment domain, thus creating enhanced feelings of presence for the players. In this type of setting the users do not [necessarily] require realistic implementations, but instead they are willing to believe to be part of the imaginary world” (8). Players believe themselves to be part of an imaginary world.

[post too long, continues (part 3) in next post]