Video Games and Violence

[ParaChomp]

Wrong thread?

Okay, I can understand what you're saying. I can't play a game with violence in it unless it's bluntly fictional (Tales of, Kirby, Zelda, etcetera). I can't play shooters (bar Metroid Prime) as I just don't find them fun for some reason. Same can be said about some fighters, they just bore me to death. Maybe it's my subconscious that's aware of this that makes me dislike them but I don't know. All I need to know is that I dislike video games with realistic violence that aren't bluntly fictional, don't care about your opinion against mine, and glad that such means more money in my wallet.

[GhostAnime]

I would just like to ask what would exactly happen to a child that plays a rated M game before the age of 17? People talk about drastic effects and all, but what is so drastic that could possibly happen? In this day and age, your child is going to be exposed to rated M or Rated R things just simply because of how easy it is to see them. Virtually everyone has.

[Vaco]

I think that video games aren't bad for most children. But there are some children who are very impressionable, and have a tendency to repeat what they observe as being acceptable, even if it is observed in a false reality. They probably shouldn't play these games. However, I think the more serious problem is that video games are addictive, and they prevent children from learning and growing from real-world experiences, as they should. Kids don't seem to play games outside anymore; games that require creativity and imagination, both things that are useful for all their life. So I think that video games don't necessarily cause bad things; rather, they displace good things.

[Iceberg]

As mentioned previously, violent video games (such as Call of Duty, Halo, Medal of Honor, etc.) have age ratings. Personally, I don't think playing a violent video game will turn your teenage child into the next Hitler. However, I think there is a certain line that should be drawn, which should be based more on the maturity of your child. I know some 8 year olds that are worlds more mature than a lot of 15 year olds I encounter. Still, I don't think Call of Duty is the best option for someone who is really to young to fully understand the context.

So while I don't think video games will make your child, or anyone for that matter, more violent. I do think certain people (regardless of age) who are too impressionable should avoid them.

[Cometstarlight]

I believe the parents should use their own intuition and common sense when buying these M rated titles for their 9 year old sons/daughters. I'm not hating or anything, I'm simply asking is your young child ready for violence and blowing off people's heads and what not? If they are desensitized to it already and you know they are straight of mind, then that is your choice. But if they are easily influenced by video games and try to renact parts from other video games, then you should wait on giving them a violent game such as Gears of War, or CoD, or anything like that.

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

Violent video games DO have an effect on kids. Just look at Columbine. The two students who committed the killings were huge players of the video game DOOM. Violent games desensitize children to violence, and alters their already-not-fully-developed brains. This is another reason why I was such an avid player of Pokemon throughout my childhood, and even to this day. It teaches you good values and morals, not about how to kill someone with a chainsaw.

I advise you to watch this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWr4htYp9dM

There is a child whom the parent keeps buying him violent video games. So Penn & Teller decided to take your argument (also the argument of politicians) to the next level and armed the child with a gun to fire in the shooting range. When the child fired that gun, he was overwhelmed with emotions to the point where he was fearful and broke down in tears. That in itself is evidence that just because you're proficient at violent video games, it doesn't mean that reality is going to play the same way.

That's where I have a problem with your statement, you claim that the killers played Doom and that means there's automatically a link between crime and violent gaming. Well you're wrong. Take a look at Eric's journals:

Everyone is always making fun of me because of how I look, how ****ing weak I am and ****, well I will get you all back: ultimate ****ing revenge here. you people could have shown more respect, treated me better, asked for my knowledge or guidence more, treated me more like senior, and maybe I wouldn't have been as ready to tear your ****ing heads off. then again, I have always hated how I looked, I make fun of people who look like me, sometimes without even thinking sometimes just because I want to rip on myself. Thats where a lot of my hate grows from, the fact that I have practically no selfesteem, especially concerning girls and looks and such. therefore people make fun of me... constantly... therefore I get no respect and therefore I get ****ing PISSED. as of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people, and then if I get a couple bayonetts, swords, axes, whatever I'll be able to kill at least 10 more. and that just isnt enough! GUNS! I need guns! Give me some ****ing firearms!
11/12/98

http://www.acolumbinesite.com/eric/writing/journal.html

Sounds a lot like pent-up hatred because of his being bullied as opposed to this so-called theory that violent gaming predisposed him to killing teenagers.

[MissDigitalis]

Verbal violence sounds like something inevitable to me. It's a result of our anonymity online. The Internet in general has the same exact problem. I think the best solution for that is to have some sort of mod system or point system based on how mean a person is online.

Some forums have "karma" that you can give out like once per day (or some other arbitrary time limit) but what I've found is that things like that don't work because not everyone has a good idea of what's nice or mean. Like, some people would give positive karma for being rude to another user.

[sizida]

I am an example of this.

It does cause violence if you read some articles of a woman killed her baby because the baby disturbed her when she was playing games on Facebook. And another in my country his father asked the boy in his 20s to stop playing game (I forgot what is it) on his X-Box 360. The boy refused and when his father resorted to take away his console, he retrieved a kitchen knife and stabbed his father's liver.

As for me video games does cause agitation if people who disturb my enjoyment time. In more extreme such as killing. Nope to me as I can't even bring myself to do this.

So it is yes and no.

[GhostAnime]

How does that necessarily mean the game was the cause?

[The Benmeister]

Sure, video games can influence people, but no more than most forms of media. With any incident of alleged violence as a 'result of video games', it's easy to miss that it's usually the behaviour of the individual itself that is the problem, whereas the video game is just the catalyst. It's usually a case of 'the person, not the weapon'.

I'm someone that will fight for the right for any form of media to be released, as long as it's controlled, and to that end, the obvious conclusion is that parents should watch what their kids play. It's illogical to campaign against video games when perhaps one in ten million people make an incident, which probably isn't even the video game's fault.

The flaw with most arguments presented is that you cannot prove that the incidents are a result of the video games themselves, mainly because the video games didn't cause it.

[Treecko's Awesomeness]

How does that necessarily mean the game was the cause?

That's what I was wondering. The violence is not because of the game, it's because the person playing the game is insane.

[marioguy]

I am an example of this.

It does cause violence if you read some articles of a woman killed her baby because the baby disturbed her when she was playing games on Facebook.

I read about that. She was playing Farmville. I doubt that the game made her crazy though.

[Psychic]

I am an example of this.

It does cause violence if you read some articles of a woman killed her baby because the baby disturbed her when she was playing games on Facebook. And another in my country his father asked the boy in his 20s to stop playing game (I forgot what is it) on his X-Box 360. The boy refused and when his father resorted to take away his console, he retrieved a kitchen knife and stabbed his father's liver.

As for me video games does cause agitation if people who disturb my enjoyment time. In more extreme such as killing. Nope to me as I can't even bring myself to do this.

So it is yes and no.

It evidently wasn't the game that caused these people to lash out - it's that they got angry about being disturbed from an activity. If that mother or boy had been doing something else and got interrupted, the reaction likely would have been the same. This was a problem with the people themselves, because apparently they were the types to get easily agitated and react violently. That's why it doesn't matter what they had been doing.

Just because video games were a part of the story does not in any mean way the video games were responsible for it happening.

~Psychic

[sizida]

Hmm. True it is dependent on who is playing the game. If the person got interested in it and became violent, do you think it is because of the person who has violent attitude got interested in it or the game that makes him interested makes him violent?

Really there are violence content in games such as FPS. I believe these kind of games make people crave for more realistic approach. Then again I did mention yes or no as my answer isn't it?

[Celestial Moth]

They do have an effect. They desensitize children to violence. For example, if a kid plays too many violent video games, and they see someone get shot or beat to death, they won't be as sensitized to it as children who don't play games like that. Those things can really mess with developing minds.

This sums things up in a nutshell.
If anyone is desensitize to anything, then the results is a lack of empathy towards those in those particular situations, which as a result can offer a kid a reason and allows a kid to easily justify their actions in which may be going out to kill people.

This is purely a physiological debate and the tests and experiments in which may have involved experimenting with the psyches of people in which had contact with these games like these always varies and thus cant be conclusive. Because the test subjects were also all different somewhat and their mental stability were all different, but the "key" demographic of people who like to play these violent games are people who are more lickly to act out those actions in real life.
Some military organizations around the world including America have recently employed some training tactics with video games because of the very good hand eye coordination in which they induce. I don't not mean to glorify any actions of the those who massacre but in some of the cases were kids in theirs schools kid and were linked to violent video games, the kills they made were mainly all head shots...

But as Trainer michael said, it creates a desensitized child. As a result a child who has a lack sof empathy towards that situation and thus creates an opportunity for thoughts to be acted out.

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

This sums things up in a nutshell.
If anyone is desensitize to anything, then the results is a lack of empathy towards those in those particular situations, which as a result can offer a kid a reason and allows a kid to easily justify their actions in which may be going out to kill people.

The link that you've established between empathy and desensitization is not as distinct as you make it seem. Who's to say that desensitization doesn't simply just desensitize? (That is to say that it lessens the shock value that people get when watching these forms of media) To use myself as an example, I am desensitized to violent and sexual images due to my work in the field (and a bit of video gaming on the side), but that doesn't mean that I'm going to kill or rape someone just because I keep getting bombarded with the gruesome images, of course I still recognize the harmfulness and the moral incorrectness of doing such acts.

If you ask me, it has more to do with underlying human behaviours. And as I've stated, the Columbine shooting is a great example of that. Eric had pent up hatred which was well-documented in his journals, how come no one is shocked by tha? Because we always try to look for quick explanations by making assumptions through correlation and assume that it has valid causation, despite the fact that said correlation has the potential to be flawed.

This is purely a physiological debate and the tests and experiments in which may have involved experimenting with the psyches of people in which had contact with these games like these always varies and thus cant be conclusive. Because the test subjects were also all different somewhat and their mental stability were all different, but the "key" demographic of people who like to play these violent games are people who are more lickly to act out those actions in real life.

Then if it always varies then I'd say it's fair to assume that video games should not harbour 100% of the blame with respect to criminal acts committed by criminal. Plus you can't say that because it's varied by person that a majority will act on these urges.

Watch this short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0miGRHuayug

Penn and Teller tested the boy's desensitization by allowing him to fire a gun in a shooting range (after being an avid player of FPS games), the boy cried after firing the gun because he knew it was reality, it was no longer a bunch of pixels that he was shooting.

Some military organizations around the world including America have recently employed some training tactics with video games because of the very good hand eye coordination in which they induce. I don't not mean to glorify any actions of the those who massacre but in some of the cases were kids in theirs schools kid and were linked to violent video games, the kills they made were mainly all head shots...

'Head Shot' is vague and insignificant, anyone with elementary school science background would know that if you eliminate the brain then you render the body dead and useless.

How come no one pays attention to the psychological/sociological/pathological profile of the video game player/murderer? It's a leap of logic when you can blame video games instead of looking up underlying behaviours.

But as Trainer michael said, it creates a desensitized child. As a result a child who has a lack sof empathy towards that situation and thus creates an opportunity for thoughts to be acted out.

Social Scientists disagree with your statement.

Abstract:
Psychological studies invariably find a positive relationship between violent video game play and aggression. However, these studies cannot account for either aggressive effects of alternative activities video game playing substitutes for or the possible selection of relatively violent people into playing violent video games. That is, they lack external validity. We investigate the relationship between the prevalence of violent video games and violent crimes. Our results are consistent with two opposing effects. First, they support the behavioral effects as in the psychological studies. Second, they suggest a larger voluntary incapacitation effect in which playing either violent or non-violent games decrease crimes. Overall, violent video games lead to decreases in violent crime.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1804959

Abstract:
Psychological studies find that video game play is associated with markers for violent and antisocial attitudes. It is plausible that these markers indicate either whetted or sated preferences for antisocial behavior. I investigate whether a proxy for video gaming is associated with the prevalence of various crimes and find evidence that gaming is associated with significant declines in crime and death rates. These results are robust to various alternative specifications. Other youth-related leisure activities—sports and movie viewing—generate smaller or no effects. These results cast doubt on the desirability of proposed restrictions on video game marketing. (JEL L86, D18, I18)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...216.x/abstract

Objective Video game violence has become a highly politicized issue for scientists and the general public. There is continuing concern that playing violent video games may increase the risk of aggression in players. Less often discussed is the possibility that playing violent video games may promote certain positive developments, particularly related to visuospatial cognition. The objective of the current article was to conduct a meta-analytic review of studies that examine the impact of violent video games on both aggressive behavior and visuospatial cognition in order to understand the full impact of such games. Methods A detailed literature search was used to identify peer-reviewed articles addressing violent video game effects. Effect sizes r (a common measure of effect size based on the correlational coefficient) were calculated for all included studies. Effect sizes were adjusted for observed publication bias. Results Results indicated that publication bias was a problem for studies of both aggressive behavior and visuospatial cognition. Once corrected for publication bias, studies of video game violence provided no support for the hypothesis that violent video game playing is associated with higher aggression. However playing violent video games remained related to higher visuospatial cognition (r x = 0.36). Conclusions Results from the current analysis did not support the conclusion that violent video game playing leads to aggressive behavior. However, violent video game playing was associated with higher visuospatial cognition. It may be advisable to reframe the violent video game debate in reference to potential costs and benefits of this medium.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/66217176984x7477/

[dd1zzle]

I think it depends on the kid playing the game itself. Biologically everything is determined, from you sexual orientation to your believes (for the most part).

[Whitn3y]

I want someone to tell me, just how video games make children into violent, rabid killing machines with computer level calculation and coldness, when fourty years ago the cool thing to do was get a pop gun pistol (A real, physical object that you hold in your hands) and play cowboys 'n indians where children actually practiced taking aim, pulling triggers, and killing each other, right after watching the new episode of Bonanza or the Lone Rider.

You wanna know what really F***K'ed up that generation of children? Getting drafted into god-dang Vietnam and shooting children in the head while they ran towards them with grenades; all while the government sprays Agent Orange or whatever "rainbow pesticide" they felt like that day all over them, and then saying "Ooops, sorry, that war was actually not really needed, and we didn't know military grade chemicals sprayed for 12 acres around your squad would have any health repercussions. You'll be fine. Now drop your drug habit and come home so you can re-integrate with our bullcrap society where your 24 year old manager at McDonalds tells you to sweep the floor or your fired when you used to shoot men in the crotch just for looking in your general direction."

Our society makes me *%*&$^ing sick sometimes. It really does.

[iFi Salamander]

I think it is just another pathetic go-to excuse to excuse terrible parenting that has no real proven evidence or support, and therefore is just one of those ideas you let them look like an idiot and run their mouth about till they get it out of their systems.

Seriously there is no correlation. If anything I would say it would be a good release for anger and make your child calmer.

[donteatsoap7]

The problem is usually the parents. Now idk if video games cause violent behaviors or not but a lot of parents will just buy a video game without even looking at the box. Take this as an example. In my opinion, they use it as a form of babysitting. I'm sure if a parent watched their child play Gears of War 3 online for a good minute, they wouldn't consider buying the sequel. And if they do allow it, then it is purely their fault for allowing their child to play one of the most violent video games ever. (For those of you that don't know about it, you have a machine gun with a chainsaw on it and a sawed-off shotgun that makes people explode). Now does that make the child act out in violence? Well, that's where I bring this up (watch the sequels, they're funny). Clearly he's violent. But is he violent because the game is well, sort of violent? Or is it because he was being betrayed? This is a very interesting topic and I'm interested in what everyone has to say.