The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Violence in gaming research paper (help please?)
isaac17
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Hey, I've been writing a research paper on the effects violent games for the last month, and was wondering if anyone could help me do some last minute editing. It still needs some revisions, and any comments are really appreciated. Thanks!
Very Violent Video Games Vociferously and Voraciously Vivify Violence, and Vise Versa (working title)
Over the last 20 years the world has seen a lot of change. Technology has increased exponentially and,
more specifically, computers have advanced from being research projects to having a place in nearly every home
in the United States. This opens a lot of doors for business, productivity, and entertainment. Almost anybody
can make and edit a movie with the most basic home computer, and a whole new kind of entertainment has
been invented: Video Games. One of the quickest up and coming industries, digital entertainment has become a
huge part of the American lifestyle. As the gaming industry exploded into action, more and more games are
oriented around violent themes: first person shooters, war games, action packed adventure games, and science
fiction/fantasy games. These are new things, not something people have really dealt with before now. With
these new technologies, playing violent games, people are able to simulate violent acts, repeatedly. Not only
that, but most of the mentioned games glorify violence, and reward extremely violent behavior. How do we
know that we aren’t being desensitized to killing, and teaching our subconscious minds that violence doesn’t
carry consequences? Perhaps it’s the other way around, does playing these games give our minds a release for
aggression? Maybe playing violent games could be used as a solution for real world violence. The truth lies
somewhere in the middle, in the grey area. Research shows that violent games temporarily stimulates emotion
and aggression, but evidence of any long term effects are yet to be seen.
Violent games have only been around for the last ten to twenty years. The older the game, the less realistic
and less violent the games were. The first game to actually bring violence to the next level of realism was DOOM,
the first first-person-shooter game ever made. Since DOOM was released, hundreds of games thereafter have
been made around the same concept. As time passed, more and more violent games were made, not to say that
all games are violent, or even the majority, but an increasing number of violent games have made their way to
homes across the nation. When ‘Grand Theft Auto 3’ was released in 2002, people started realizing just how
violent some games were. GTA 3 was possibly the most controversial and violent game ever released. It brought
senseless violence and killing to a level that could not be ignored. Killing police officers, having sex with
prostitutes to restore the players health, and killing any civilian you felt like killing. Just after GTA 3 was released,
murders started getting blamed on the game. Many killers owned the game, and in one case a mentally
disturbed teenager said that “Grand theft auto 3 made him kill them†after shooting several people (REFERENCE
HERE). Thus the debate was born. Do violent games make people violent? Did Grand Theft Auto actually have
anything to do with these violent crimes? Are games desensitizing people to violence? Violent games really
haven’t progressed much past Grand Theft Auto 3. The technology behind making games has advanced, but no
games since have really been more senselessly violent than GTA 3. So how do violent games effect people?
The problem with proving how violent games effect people is in the research. You can’t submit kids to
playing violent shooting games and wait to see if they grow up to be violent serial killers. The only research that
can be done is correlational, and correlation NEVER proves a connection. That means that at this current time,
nobody can prove that violent games effect people in any way, nor can you prove that violent games DON’T effect
people. There are three subjects I want to touch on. First, the current state in activism against violent games.
The current campaigning against violent games is absolutely hysterical. It seems like every other week a murder
is being blamed on violent games. Second, how do games effect people, and what research is being done on the
subject. Newer research has used brain scans to see that the emotional part of people’s brains are stimulated
after playing violent games. Lastly, what should be done in order to protect people from violent games. Is the
ESRB rating system keeping children from having access to violent games? Do we trust parents with the
responsibility of protecting children from violent games, or do we need to put laws in place and play the role of
parent?
The biggest problem with the whole TOPIC of violent video games, is that real research is nearly impossible
at this time. In order to prove a connection, that violent games make people more violent and/or aggressive, you
need to either submit people to lots of violent video games, and see if they turn out to be violent people, or use
some sort of technology (yet to be invented) that can track a persons aggressiveness. It’s obviously an ethical
problem to make people play lots of violent games to see if they’ll be violent, thus, the only research you can do
on the topic is correlational research. Correlation never proves that there is causation. Even though there is no
technology (as of yet) to test if violent games are making people aggressive, there have been recent studies with
basic brain scans that show the emotional part of people’s brains being stimulated while playing violent games.
This also usually correlates with aggressiveness levels, so it would seem that in the short term, people may
become more aggressive while playing games. However, this can be discounted to one of many parts of gaming,
namely that it’s in this type of game’s nature to be frustrating, and difficult. The results shown in this new
testing would most likely be replicated simply by having the test subject perform other difficult or frustrating
tasks.
The biggest thing to remember, is that in the end, there is no evidence for either side. It’s only been
around 10 years since the belief that violent games make people violent started, and it’s still common belief that
violent games make people violent, even though there are little grounds, and no proof, for this belief. Nobody
knows for sure whether or not games make people violent in the long run, but which side is easier to argue?
Which would you be more inclined to believe, “Playing violent video games, and watching people get brutally
murdered doesn’t make you more violentâ€, or “Playing violent video games... DOES make you more violentâ€?
There are a few reasons to believe that games might make people more violent. The two main reasons being
that games desensitize you to seeing violence, and that games reward violence. While playing some violent
games, you kill another person in around 30 seconds (some less, some more). Not only that, but that’s the
objective of the game, and your character in the game is rewarded immensely for killing. Seeing that many
violent acts, most of which are murder, is obviously desensitizing. It’s the same issue that has been brought up
so much about violence in movies, books, and other forms of entertainment. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that
people are so against video games, when there is no proof whatsoever that games make people violent. Even
more surprising is that an argument hasn’t come up over older entertainment, such as football. I haven’t seen
or heard a single argument that watching football is desensitizing. What if people start tackling every person
they see, because they watched way too much football?
Often seen on the anti video gaming side is all out activism. People dedicate entire careers to blatantly
bashing on video games, and are able to make up all sorts of false evidence against games. It’s not bias being
seen, but bigotry. For example, a few years ago, Jack Thompson (a big antigaming crusader) appeared on a crime
scene only a few minutes after the crime, and accused video games of making the killer do it. The problem? At
that point there wasn’t even a suspect yet. Simply because they knew it was a violent teenager, video games
became an immediate scapegoat. In a more recent case, Fox news aired a segment on a new game called ‘Mass
Effect’, citing it’s sex and violence, when in reality episodes of LOST have been more graphic and sexual than the
game. The frustrating part about the segment was when a reporter actually stated that even though the game
was rated M (and therefore can’t be sold to minors), the people that would actually play it would all be little kids,
and that somehow they would play the game for a few minutes and see the sex scene (which, consequently, is
only a 1 minute part of a 40 hour game, and you have to play the game just right to even see it). If the
legislative system could get together and talk about the current state of violent video games, and set a few laws
restricting violent/sexual games to older audiences, it would save everyone a lot of frustration in dealing with
activism.
“But they keep making violent games! Even if only adults can buy the games, younger kids can still play
them! My child isn’t protected from violent games that will turn him into a murderer!†Too many concerned
mothers believe that their children are going to come in contact with violent games and be morally scarred. I
hate to break it to you, but research shows that action films show the same results on the brain as violent
games:
“What about violent TV shows? Or violent films? Has anyone ever done a brain scan of kids that have just
watched a violent movie? Someone has. John P. Murray, a psychology professor at Kansas State University,
conducted a very similar experiment, employing the same technology used in Mathews’ study. His findings are
similar. Kids in his study experienced increased emotional arousal when watching short clips from the boxing
movie ‘Rocky IV.’†(MSNBC)
Violent movies haven’t been an actual controversial issue for years. The ‘bad’ movies are rated ‘R’, and parents
can decide whether or not to show their kids these films. Games have a similar rating system in place: an ‘M’
rating prevents minors from purchasing or playing such games (without parental permission). There is no cause
for activism in the topic, a well organized debate on the topic will most certainly get quicker (not to mention
better) results.
Finally, how should we regulate the sales of violent video games? There are currently no laws restricting
the sales of ‘M’ rated games to minors, but many major retail stores refuse to sell them to anyone under the age
of 17. So should there be laws set by the federal government restricting the sales of ‘M’ rated games to minors?
Not really, no. The NY Times recently stated that R rated movies are more graphic than recent AO games (Adult
Only, roughly equivalent to an Unrated film), such as ‘Manhunt 2’.
The game is aimed at players 17 and older, Mr. Zelnick said, noting that the average age of consumers who play
the company’s games was 33. “This is still animation,†he added. “It’s not photo-realistic. It’s not live action. And
compared to an R-rated movie, which is intended for 17 and above, like ‘Saw’ or ‘Hostel,’ it’s actually pretty tame.
But you make your own conclusions when you play the game.†I did. American raters, somewhat surprisingly,
don’t actually play the games. Instead they base their decisions on a videotape compilation, a kind of highlight
reel, of the bloodiest or raciest scenes.†(NY Times)
Although ESRB (the MPAA of video game ratings) says M rated games aren’t suitable to anyone under the age of
17, most of which are only roughly equivalent to a 10-40 hour PG-13 movie.
Violence in video games has been a hot topic for the last couple years, but after spending a month
researching the topic, it’s easy to see past both sides of the argument. Does violence in video games make
people, or even train people, to kill others? No. Does it raise aggression temporarily, and stimulate emotional
parts of your brain? Yes, exactly like mildly violent movies do. Do violent games make people more violent in the
long run? Nobody knows for sure, and it’s likely that the question won’t be answered for a while, it’s simply
unethical to make people play violent games for extended periods of time just for the sake of research, and there
currently aren’t any other ways of testing the issue. In the mean time, anti-gaming activism needs be given a
rest. We’ve all seen and heard enough bullshit about video games that simply isn’t true, and until science
catches up to the issue, it’s parents’ responsibility to protect their children from seeing too much violence in
movies, television, and video games, not the government’s. It’s about time we realized that and moved on to
bigger and better issues. Now who shot JFK?
Over the last 20 years the world has seen a lot of change. Technology has increased exponentially and,
more specifically, computers have advanced from being research projects to having a place in nearly every home
in the United States. This opens a lot of doors for business, productivity, and entertainment. Almost anybody
can make and edit a movie with the most basic home computer, and a whole new kind of entertainment has
been invented: Video Games. One of the quickest up and coming industries, digital entertainment has become a
huge part of the American lifestyle. As the gaming industry exploded into action, more and more games are
oriented around violent themes: first person shooters, war games, action packed adventure games, and science
fiction/fantasy games. These are new things, not something people have really dealt with before now. With
these new technologies, playing violent games, people are able to simulate violent acts, repeatedly. Not only
that, but most of the mentioned games glorify violence, and reward extremely violent behavior. How do we
know that we aren’t being desensitized to killing, and teaching our subconscious minds that violence doesn’t
carry consequences? Perhaps it’s the other way around, does playing these games give our minds a release for
aggression? Maybe playing violent games could be used as a solution for real world violence. The truth lies
somewhere in the middle, in the grey area. Research shows that violent games temporarily stimulates emotion
and aggression, but evidence of any long term effects are yet to be seen.
Violent games have only been around for the last ten to twenty years. The older the game, the less realistic
and less violent the games were. The first game to actually bring violence to the next level of realism was DOOM,
the first first-person-shooter game ever made. Since DOOM was released, hundreds of games thereafter have
been made around the same concept. As time passed, more and more violent games were made, not to say that
all games are violent, or even the majority, but an increasing number of violent games have made their way to
homes across the nation. When ‘Grand Theft Auto 3’ was released in 2002, people started realizing just how
violent some games were. GTA 3 was possibly the most controversial and violent game ever released. It brought
senseless violence and killing to a level that could not be ignored. Killing police officers, having sex with
prostitutes to restore the players health, and killing any civilian you felt like killing. Just after GTA 3 was released,
murders started getting blamed on the game. Many killers owned the game, and in one case a mentally
disturbed teenager said that “Grand theft auto 3 made him kill them†after shooting several people (REFERENCE
HERE). Thus the debate was born. Do violent games make people violent? Did Grand Theft Auto actually have
anything to do with these violent crimes? Are games desensitizing people to violence? Violent games really
haven’t progressed much past Grand Theft Auto 3. The technology behind making games has advanced, but no
games since have really been more senselessly violent than GTA 3. So how do violent games effect people?
The problem with proving how violent games effect people is in the research. You can’t submit kids to
playing violent shooting games and wait to see if they grow up to be violent serial killers. The only research that
can be done is correlational, and correlation NEVER proves a connection. That means that at this current time,
nobody can prove that violent games effect people in any way, nor can you prove that violent games DON’T effect
people. There are three subjects I want to touch on. First, the current state in activism against violent games.
The current campaigning against violent games is absolutely hysterical. It seems like every other week a murder
is being blamed on violent games. Second, how do games effect people, and what research is being done on the
subject. Newer research has used brain scans to see that the emotional part of people’s brains are stimulated
after playing violent games. Lastly, what should be done in order to protect people from violent games. Is the
ESRB rating system keeping children from having access to violent games? Do we trust parents with the
responsibility of protecting children from violent games, or do we need to put laws in place and play the role of
parent?
The biggest problem with the whole TOPIC of violent video games, is that real research is nearly impossible
at this time. In order to prove a connection, that violent games make people more violent and/or aggressive, you
need to either submit people to lots of violent video games, and see if they turn out to be violent people, or use
some sort of technology (yet to be invented) that can track a persons aggressiveness. It’s obviously an ethical
problem to make people play lots of violent games to see if they’ll be violent, thus, the only research you can do
on the topic is correlational research. Correlation never proves that there is causation. Even though there is no
technology (as of yet) to test if violent games are making people aggressive, there have been recent studies with
basic brain scans that show the emotional part of people’s brains being stimulated while playing violent games.
This also usually correlates with aggressiveness levels, so it would seem that in the short term, people may
become more aggressive while playing games. However, this can be discounted to one of many parts of gaming,
namely that it’s in this type of game’s nature to be frustrating, and difficult. The results shown in this new
testing would most likely be replicated simply by having the test subject perform other difficult or frustrating
tasks.
The biggest thing to remember, is that in the end, there is no evidence for either side. It’s only been
around 10 years since the belief that violent games make people violent started, and it’s still common belief that
violent games make people violent, even though there are little grounds, and no proof, for this belief. Nobody
knows for sure whether or not games make people violent in the long run, but which side is easier to argue?
Which would you be more inclined to believe, “Playing violent video games, and watching people get brutally
murdered doesn’t make you more violentâ€, or “Playing violent video games... DOES make you more violentâ€?
There are a few reasons to believe that games might make people more violent. The two main reasons being
that games desensitize you to seeing violence, and that games reward violence. While playing some violent
games, you kill another person in around 30 seconds (some less, some more). Not only that, but that’s the
objective of the game, and your character in the game is rewarded immensely for killing. Seeing that many
violent acts, most of which are murder, is obviously desensitizing. It’s the same issue that has been brought up
so much about violence in movies, books, and other forms of entertainment. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that
people are so against video games, when there is no proof whatsoever that games make people violent. Even
more surprising is that an argument hasn’t come up over older entertainment, such as football. I haven’t seen
or heard a single argument that watching football is desensitizing. What if people start tackling every person
they see, because they watched way too much football?
Often seen on the anti video gaming side is all out activism. People dedicate entire careers to blatantly
bashing on video games, and are able to make up all sorts of false evidence against games. It’s not bias being
seen, but bigotry. For example, a few years ago, Jack Thompson (a big antigaming crusader) appeared on a crime
scene only a few minutes after the crime, and accused video games of making the killer do it. The problem? At
that point there wasn’t even a suspect yet. Simply because they knew it was a violent teenager, video games
became an immediate scapegoat. In a more recent case, Fox news aired a segment on a new game called ‘Mass
Effect’, citing it’s sex and violence, when in reality episodes of LOST have been more graphic and sexual than the
game. The frustrating part about the segment was when a reporter actually stated that even though the game
was rated M (and therefore can’t be sold to minors), the people that would actually play it would all be little kids,
and that somehow they would play the game for a few minutes and see the sex scene (which, consequently, is
only a 1 minute part of a 40 hour game, and you have to play the game just right to even see it). If the
legislative system could get together and talk about the current state of violent video games, and set a few laws
restricting violent/sexual games to older audiences, it would save everyone a lot of frustration in dealing with
activism.
“But they keep making violent games! Even if only adults can buy the games, younger kids can still play
them! My child isn’t protected from violent games that will turn him into a murderer!†Too many concerned
mothers believe that their children are going to come in contact with violent games and be morally scarred. I
hate to break it to you, but research shows that action films show the same results on the brain as violent
games:
“What about violent TV shows? Or violent films? Has anyone ever done a brain scan of kids that have just
watched a violent movie? Someone has. John P. Murray, a psychology professor at Kansas State University,
conducted a very similar experiment, employing the same technology used in Mathews’ study. His findings are
similar. Kids in his study experienced increased emotional arousal when watching short clips from the boxing
movie ‘Rocky IV.’†(MSNBC)
Violent movies haven’t been an actual controversial issue for years. The ‘bad’ movies are rated ‘R’, and parents
can decide whether or not to show their kids these films. Games have a similar rating system in place: an ‘M’
rating prevents minors from purchasing or playing such games (without parental permission). There is no cause
for activism in the topic, a well organized debate on the topic will most certainly get quicker (not to mention
better) results.
Finally, how should we regulate the sales of violent video games? There are currently no laws restricting
the sales of ‘M’ rated games to minors, but many major retail stores refuse to sell them to anyone under the age
of 17. So should there be laws set by the federal government restricting the sales of ‘M’ rated games to minors?
Not really, no. The NY Times recently stated that R rated movies are more graphic than recent AO games (Adult
Only, roughly equivalent to an Unrated film), such as ‘Manhunt 2’.
The game is aimed at players 17 and older, Mr. Zelnick said, noting that the average age of consumers who play
the company’s games was 33. “This is still animation,†he added. “It’s not photo-realistic. It’s not live action. And
compared to an R-rated movie, which is intended for 17 and above, like ‘Saw’ or ‘Hostel,’ it’s actually pretty tame.
But you make your own conclusions when you play the game.†I did. American raters, somewhat surprisingly,
don’t actually play the games. Instead they base their decisions on a videotape compilation, a kind of highlight
reel, of the bloodiest or raciest scenes.†(NY Times)
Although ESRB (the MPAA of video game ratings) says M rated games aren’t suitable to anyone under the age of
17, most of which are only roughly equivalent to a 10-40 hour PG-13 movie.
Violence in video games has been a hot topic for the last couple years, but after spending a month
researching the topic, it’s easy to see past both sides of the argument. Does violence in video games make
people, or even train people, to kill others? No. Does it raise aggression temporarily, and stimulate emotional
parts of your brain? Yes, exactly like mildly violent movies do. Do violent games make people more violent in the
long run? Nobody knows for sure, and it’s likely that the question won’t be answered for a while, it’s simply
unethical to make people play violent games for extended periods of time just for the sake of research, and there
currently aren’t any other ways of testing the issue. In the mean time, anti-gaming activism needs be given a
rest. We’ve all seen and heard enough bullshit about video games that simply isn’t true, and until science
catches up to the issue, it’s parents’ responsibility to protect their children from seeing too much violence in
movies, television, and video games, not the government’s. It’s about time we realized that and moved on to
bigger and better issues. Now who shot JFK?
isaac17 on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Over the last 20 years the world has seen a lot of change. Technology has increased exponentially and, more specifically, computers have advanced from being research projects to having a place in nearly every home in the United States. This opens a lot of doors for business, productivity, and entertainment. Almost anybody can make and edit a movie with the most basic home computer, and a whole new kind of entertainment has been invented: Video Games. One of the quickest up and coming industries, digital entertainment has become a huge part of the American lifestyle. As the gaming industry exploded into action, more and more games are oriented around violent themes: first person shooters, war games, action packed adventure games, and science fiction/fantasy games. These are new things, not something people have really dealt with before now. With these new technologies, playing violent games, people are able to simulate violent acts, repeatedly. Not only that, but most of the mentioned games glorify violence, and reward extremely violent behavior. How do we know that we aren’t being desensitized to killing, and teaching our subconscious minds that violence doesn’t carry consequences? Perhaps it’s the other way around, does playing these games give our minds a release for aggression? Maybe playing violent games could be used as a solution for real world violence. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, in the grey area. Research shows that violent games temporarily stimulates emotion and aggression, but evidence of any long term effects are yet to be seen.
Violent games have only been around for the last ten to twenty years. The older the game, the less realistic and less violent the games were. The first game to actually bring violence to the next level of realism was DOOM, the first first-person-shooter game ever made. Since DOOM was released, hundreds of games thereafter have been made around the same concept. As time passed, more and more violent games were made, not to say that all games are violent, or even the majority, but an increasing number of violent games have made their way to homes across the nation. When ‘Grand Theft Auto 3’ was released in 2002, people started realizing just how violent some games were. GTA 3 was possibly the most controversial and violent game ever released. It brought senseless violence and killing to a level that could not be ignored. Killing police officers, having sex with prostitutes to restore the players health, and killing any civilian you felt like killing. Just after GTA 3 was released, murders started getting blamed on the game. Many killers owned the game, and in one case a mentally disturbed teenager said that “Grand theft auto 3 made him kill them” after shooting several people (REFERENCE HERE). Thus the debate was born. Do violent games make people violent? Did Grand Theft Auto actually have anything to do with these violent crimes? Are games desensitizing people to violence? Violent games really haven’t progressed much past Grand Theft Auto 3. The technology behind making games has advanced, but no games since have really been more senselessly violent than GTA 3. So how do violent games effect people?
The problem with proving how violent games effect people is in the research. You can’t submit kids to playing violent shooting games and wait to see if they grow up to be violent serial killers. The only research that can be done is correlational, and correlation NEVER proves a connection. That means that at this current time, nobody can prove that violent games effect people in any way, nor can you prove that violent games DON’T effect people. There are three subjects I want to touch on. First, the current state in activism against violent games. The current campaigning against violent games is absolutely hysterical. It seems like every other week a murder is being blamed on violent games. Second, how do games effect people, and what research is being done on the subject. Newer research has used brain scans to see that the emotional part of people’s brains are stimulated after playing violent games. Lastly, what should be done in order to protect people from violent games. Is the ESRB rating system keeping children from having access to violent games? Do we trust parents with the responsibility of protecting children from violent games, or do we need to put laws in place and play the role of parent?
The biggest problem with the whole TOPIC of violent video games, is that real research is nearly impossible at this time. In order to prove a connection, that violent games make people more violent and/or aggressive, you need to either submit people to lots of violent video games, and see if they turn out to be violent people, or use some sort of technology (yet to be invented) that can track a persons aggressiveness. It’s obviously an ethical problem to make people play lots of violent games to see if they’ll be violent, thus, the only research you can do on the topic is correlational research. Correlation never proves that there is causation. Even though there is no technology (as of yet) to test if violent games are making people aggressive, there have been recent studies with basic brain scans that show the emotional part of people’s brains being stimulated while playing violent games. This also usually correlates with aggressiveness levels, so it would seem that in the short term, people may become more aggressive while playing games. However, this can be discounted to one of many parts of gaming, namely that it’s in this type of game’s nature to be frustrating, and difficult. The results shown in this new testing would most likely be replicated simply by having the test subject perform other difficult or frustrating tasks.
The biggest thing to remember, is that in the end, there is no evidence for either side. It’s only been around 10 years since the belief that violent games make people violent started, and it’s still common belief that violent games make people violent, even though there are little grounds, and no proof, for this belief. Nobody knows for sure whether or not games make people violent in the long run, but which side is easier to argue? Which would you be more inclined to believe, “Playing violent video games, and watching people get brutally murdered doesn’t make you more violent”, or “Playing violent video games... DOES make you more violent”? There are a few reasons to believe that games might make people more violent. The two main reasons being that games desensitize you to seeing violence, and that games reward violence. While playing some violent games, you kill another person in around 30 seconds (some less, some more). Not only that, but that’s the objective of the game, and your character in the game is rewarded immensely for killing. Seeing that many violent acts, most of which are murder, is obviously desensitizing. It’s the same issue that has been brought up so much about violence in movies, books, and other forms of entertainment. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that people are so against video games, when there is no proof whatsoever that games make people violent. Even more surprising is that an argument hasn’t come up over older entertainment, such as football. I haven’t seen or heard a single argument that watching football is desensitizing. What if people start tackling every person they see, because they watched way too much football?
Often seen on the anti video gaming side is all out activism. People dedicate entire careers to blatantly bashing on video games, and are able to make up all sorts of false evidence against games. It’s not bias being seen, but bigotry. For example, a few years ago, Jack Thompson (a big antigaming crusader) appeared on a crime scene only a few minutes after the crime, and accused video games of making the killer do it. The problem? At that point there wasn’t even a suspect yet. Simply because they knew it was a violent teenager, video games became an immediate scapegoat. In a more recent case, Fox news aired a segment on a new game called ‘Mass Effect’, citing it’s sex and violence, when in reality episodes of LOST have been more graphic and sexual than the game. The frustrating part about the segment was when a reporter actually stated that even though the game was rated M (and therefore can’t be sold to minors), the people that would actually play it would all be little kids, and that somehow they would play the game for a few minutes and see the sex scene (which, consequently, is only a 1 minute part of a 40 hour game, and you have to play the game just right to even see it). If the legislative system could get together and talk about the current state of violent video games, and set a few laws restricting violent/sexual games to older audiences, it would save everyone a lot of frustration in dealing with activism.
“But they keep making violent games! Even if only adults can buy the games, younger kids can still play them! My child isn’t protected from violent games that will turn him into a murderer!” Too many concerned mothers believe that their children are going to come in contact with violent games and be morally scarred. I hate to break it to you, but research shows that action films show the same results on the brain as violent games:
“What about violent TV shows? Or violent films? Has anyone ever done a brain scan of kids that have just watched a violent movie? Someone has. John P. Murray, a psychology professor at Kansas State University, conducted a very similar experiment, employing the same technology used in Mathews’ study. His findings are similar. Kids in his study experienced increased emotional arousal when watching short clips from the boxing movie ‘Rocky IV.’” (MSNBC)
Violent movies haven’t been an actual controversial issue for years. The ‘bad’ movies are rated ‘R’, and parents can decide whether or not to show their kids these films. Games have a similar rating system in place: an ‘M’ rating prevents minors from purchasing or playing such games (without parental permission). There is no cause for activism in the topic, a well organized debate on the topic will most certainly get quicker (not to mention better) results.
Finally, how should we regulate the sales of violent video games? There are currently no laws restricting the sales of ‘M’ rated games to minors, but many major retail stores refuse to sell them to anyone under the age of 17. So should there be laws set by the federal government restricting the sales of ‘M’ rated games to minors? Not really, no. The NY Times recently stated that R rated movies are more graphic than recent AO games (Adult Only, roughly equivalent to an Unrated film), such as ‘Manhunt 2’.
The game is aimed at players 17 and older, Mr. Zelnick said, noting that the average age of consumers who play the company’s games was 33. “This is still animation,” he added. “It’s not photo-realistic. It’s not live action. And compared to an R-rated movie, which is intended for 17 and above, like ‘Saw’ or ‘Hostel,’ it’s actually pretty tame. But you make your own conclusions when you play the game.” I did. American raters, somewhat surprisingly, don’t actually play the games. Instead they base their decisions on a videotape compilation, a kind of highlight reel, of the bloodiest or raciest scenes.” (NY Times)
Although ESRB (the MPAA of video game ratings) says M rated games aren’t suitable to anyone under the age of 17, most of which are only roughly equivalent to a 10-40 hour PG-13 movie.
Violence in video games has been a hot topic for the last couple years, but after spending a month researching the topic, it’s easy to see past both sides of the argument. Does violence in video games make people, or even train people, to kill others? No. Does it raise aggression temporarily, and stimulate emotional parts of your brain? Yes, exactly like mildly violent movies do. Do violent games make people more violent in the long run? Nobody knows for sure, and it’s likely that the question won’t be answered for a while, it’s simply unethical to make people play violent games for extended periods of time just for the sake of research, and there currently aren’t any other ways of testing the issue. In the mean time, anti-gaming activism needs be given a rest. We’ve all seen and heard enough bullshit about video games that simply isn’t true, and until science catches up to the issue, it’s parents’ responsibility to protect their children from seeing too much violence in movies, television, and video games, not the government’s. It’s about time we realized that and moved on to bigger and better issues. Now who shot JFK?
big ole titties