The Debate Thread: Violent Video Games, Society & You

Not the most original topic but one of those eternal threads, particularly on a forum of gamers. You know the debate: one side says violent video games pose a threat to society and are responsible for all manner of atrocities and deviant behavior, the other says that's rubbish and that there's no proof that such games turn well-adjusted people into murderers, thieves and whatever else.

The debate is often presented as Politicians vs Gamers or Moral Guardians vs Gamers or Jack Thompson vs Gamers. However, I'd be interested to know whether any of the gamers around these parts are actually against violent games or believe they pose a threat to society. So if you're posting in this thread by all means feel free to play devil's advocate, but I would be interested in the actual stance of all those participating at some point. I have to believe that gamers aren't 100% united on this, as often presented.

I'm of the ilk that does not consider violent video games to be an evil that's plaguing society, but I'll get to that shortly. For now I just wanted to get the ball rolling with another debate topic without loading up the first post too much. If anyone wants to pose questions as benji did in the other topics, please feel free.

Penn and Teller did a Bullshit! episode on this, ending with the hypothetical situation whereby videogames have been around for years, and videogame competitions are a central part of high schools and colleges funded by the schools themselves. And then football comes along, kids start getting real injuries, and even dying, and there's a whole lot of outrage.

There are far worse things on this earth than videogames.

Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUSQOLXaoIU#t=5m18s

Haven't seen that one before, but will have to check out the whole thing at some point. Love what Penn and Teller have done with Bullshit!.

The kid in that episode's a wuss.
Probably been hurt by the recoil of the rifle.

We can be clear about this. Exposure causes children to think these things are okay. The only people who would accept this criminal behavior are those already under the trance of violent media, If we arrested these people before they acted we could save many lives. The fact that we don't shows just how much we do not care about the lives of our children.

Exposure causes children to think these things are okay.

Prove this. Science hasn't managed to.

If we arrested these people before they acted we could save many lives

No, you'd be violating their constitutional right to not be falsely imprisoned. I'm sure benji can supply the exact amendment and wording.

We can be clear about this. Exposure causes children to think these things are okay.

How? Prove it. Make it clear.

Here's the thing about kids. They're not little recording devices (even though it seems like it). They have thoughts, motivatons, emotions of their own. While behavior they see can make them consider doing deviant acts (much like those seen in say...GTA), with proper guidance they will still know right from wrong. I've seen 7 year olds who play GTA who are totally fine and have grown up to be awesome, high achieving teenagers. I've seen others who have never touched the game, get high, pull out a gun and shoot at a cop (i just said it, i didnt know if youd do it or not /eminemreference). Its all about environment and guidance. If you guide the child the right way while allowing those video games to be played: they'll be fine. Anyone who plays a violent game and starts shooting shit up had other mental issues long before they touched the game.

I've seen some people that are addicted to the games for long period and becoming retarded to commit crimes or becoming socially impotent. It's true that committing too much in the video game world can influence a said person's life negatively.

I've seen some people that are addicted to the games for long period and becoming retarded to commit crimes or becoming socially impotent. It's true that committing too much in the video game world can influence a said person's life negatively.

No..its not. Let me guess: the games took over their life and they constantly and never really fit in the real world? Yeah it happens alot and its signs of mental illness. 99% of addictions are bad and video games are no exception. Like I said though: there's more going on than just the games in those cases. If it wasnt video games, it'd be movies, tv, or music. People need to accept blame for their own actions or people need to realize mental illness is more common than we think.

I'm not sure what to say. I would never go around the city doing random jobs for people, stealing cars and shooting their enemies.

When I was younger, I tried to hop on turtles. It pissed me off because they never slid on the ground, they just cracked and went splat. So I tried eating a couple flowers. I did not grow bigger, and I could not throw bouncing fireballs with my arms. For some odd reason I have become terrified of pipes and gaps in the ground. I wonder if I hurt myself somehow while headbutting brick ceilings.

Video games actually made me more social.

I don't get what your "No..its not." implies to what I said above.

If you are somehow influenced by the games you play, chances are there's already something pretty messed up about you in the first place, most likely related to past experiences. Video games do not compel people to be/become violent, they just happen to be the perfect scapegoat for a minority of people who will always seek obvious culprits instead of digging for other explanations that might be even more unpleasant to them.

If a video game can hold more influence over someone's mom and dad at an early age, then I'd like to think that someone has failed at parenting.

If a video game can hold more influence over someone's mom and dad at an early age, then I'd like to think that someone has failed at parenting.

Agreed. That's what bugs me about the whole "video games are evil/destroying our youth" scapegoating, it lets parents off the hook for not keeping tabs on what their kids are playing and teaching them the difference between right and wrong, or for that matter reality and fiction. When a troubled kid shoots his classmates in cold blood, it's easier to blame Rockstar than wonder where you went wrong, what signs you missed and what could've been done to help the kid deal with their problems.

As far as the whole "ratings don't matter, they'll get their hands on the game anyway", that again strikes me as a convenient excuse for lack of parenting. If your kids get their hands on a game you don't want them playing, take it away. Take away their gaming system too, or just the power adapter (now there's an effective punishment; you can look at that console all you want, but you can't play it!). Punish them. Talk to them about it. Raise awareness of it with other parents if it really concerns you. But don't place the blame on game developers and impose on the rights of people who want to play the game and are old enough to make that choice. There's a weird double standard going on there too. If kids get their hands on a game with violent content, it's the fault of the game developers. Yet if they get their hands on a gun - let's say it belongs to their parents - then it's not considered the fault of the gun's manufacturer nor the parents reckless and cavalier about gun safety, once again the blame is placed on the game developers.

The notion that I really balk at though is that a violent video game will take a well-adjusted person and turn them into a cold-blooded killer. There's yet to be any definitive proof of that. I do believe that they can cause problems with people who are already disturbed in some way, to those people with a warped perspective of the world they perhaps offer inspiration or further a misguided belief/lack of appreciation for human life, but in that sense they're no different to an action film or even angry and violent poetry and literature. Mark David Chapman cited The Catcher in the Rye as his inspiration for murdering John Lennon and yes that book is frequently banned, but not for that reason.

If a million people buy a game and let's say five of those people go on to commit some form of violent act, how can the game be held responsible? The game is always identified as a common link, yet other factors such as whether the individuals were bullied or suffering some sort of psychological problem usually isn't. But even if the game is the link between those five people who committed a heinous act, it's also a common factor of the 999,995 who didn't. When we place the blame on the games, we ignore other problems and miss the opportunity to fix other problems in society, the things that lead certain individuals to look at a video game or a movie and decide "Hey, that's how I'll solve my problems".

It's about parental guidance. Violent video games are rated at least teen, which means 14 and up (I think?). If parents pay attention to what movies their kids are watching, what music they're listening to, and what games they're playing, they'll be able to be parents; I'm not saying censor them or shelter them, but play the game or listen to the music with them, regardless of whether you like it, and make sure they know the difference between reality and entertainment.

When that line is blurred is when there's a problem; however, the degree of that problem depends on the way the person is wired from birth.

Psychological studies have shown that violent videogames increase aggression after playing them, but this is in correlation with any sort of competitive activity, be it table tennis or football. Competition makes humans more aggressive. The prior statement is why there are no scientific studies supporting violent videogames causing violence

This is a similar argument to the aged "gun violence." A gun in the hand of a crazy person will kill people; a gun in the hand of a sane person will likely only protect against said crazy or be used for hunting.

*cheap plug* My brother has a lot of interesting views on this because he works in the violent video game industry....he's one of the lead programmer and tools programmer for Brink (http://www.brinkthegame.com). Check it out, it looks cool as hell...but only for adults ages 18 and up.

Take away their gaming system too, or just the power adapter (now there's an effective punishment; you can look at that console all you want, but you can't play it!).

Can't wait to see the shit you pull with your kids.

I speak from experience, at least as far as being on the kid's side of things. My Dad did that with my NES back in the day.

It's true that committing too much in the video game world can influence a said person's life negatively.

No..its not.

Check it out, it looks cool as hell...but only for adults ages 18 and up.

That's a game I won't be playing, then, because of this very issue. Kids might see all that violence and go kill people, therefore us adults are forced to miss out.

I think I got more pissed off at non-violent games when I was younger. Violent games may have actually calmed me down more, since I could release my anger in a simulated form.

Even if there was no proven connection between violence caused by video games and violent video games (which there is, study the research instead of the corporate propaganda) they would still be harmful things that should be banned. They promote a lazy sit around and be fat lifestyle and do nothing to advance children's education. If instead of sitting around playing games these kids were exercising and doing more studying they and all of us would be better off.

What research? Linkz plz.

Even if there was no proven connection between violence caused by video games and violent video games (which there is, study the research instead of the corporate propaganda) they would still be harmful things that should be banned. They promote a lazy sit around and be fat lifestyle and do nothing to advance children's education. If instead of sitting around playing games these kids were exercising and doing more studying they and all of us would be better off.

Why would anyone be better off because someone weight ten less pounds?