Perceptions and justifications of playing violent video games from the player?

I'm going to try and keep this written cleanly and remain on topic.

I'm a gamer and I for one, play violent video games – who wouldn't right? A massive proportion of video games tend to includes elements of aggression and violence. Blowing limbs off in WaW,COD:BO, Fallout 3 and new vegas, the nature of missions in GTA, Saints row, the blood content in God of war III, Gears, MK - The list is endless. In fact, most big-selling games include violence within them and I'll happily point out I play these titles. Yet, psychological research has shown consistent patterns, generally from observational studies and free play, that playing or even watching such games can lead to short-term aggressive and violent behaviour after playing (longitudinal studies are rare in video game research, so long term effects are unknown). This is found to be more prevalent in young children (e.g 15 year old playing 18 certified games), but also in young-middle age adults although less consistently noted in research. With regards to young-middle age adults, some research shows similar patterns to them found on children, whereas others have found absolutely no ramifications.

So to summarise the above;-

• Most games tend to have aggressive or violent elements contained within them.

• Games that claim to have aggressive and/or violent elements can lead to aggressive and/or violent behaviour.

• This is more prevalently found in children, although elements of aggression and hostility have been found in young-middle age adults.

• Also, some prisons don't allow 18 certified games (yes some prisons do have xbox 360s in some cells) because of this whole notion.
  

Now, I'm currently studying post-graduate (Msc) level in a form of Psychology. For my dissertation, I'm thinking of stepping outside the box and rather than doing research that will either favour or go against the notion that violent gaming leads to violent behaviour, which is methodologically problematic in itself, I'm aiming to do a qualitative study into the perceptions and justifications from the gamers point of view into the whole concept itself. Many people who write these journals are people who specialise into addiction, and very few are 'actual' gamers.

So, as a starting point, I'm interested in how we feel about this notion that violent games lead to violent behaviour? I mean certificates are there for child safety, just like films, but i'm more concerned with young adults and older being affected.

I'm wanting to get a discussion going with regards to this, no right or wrong answers – just a debate. The areas I personally feel should be covered are:-

• How do you feel about this whole concept? Personal view, not a professional one into the perception of violent games leading to short-term hostility?

• Why do you play these games? Justifications? Are they because they're violent or is the violence simply an extra thing contained within the game?

• Are your favourite games violent? Why are these your favourite?

And to be clear :-

THIS IS NOT A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT, NOR WILL YOUR ANSWERS BE USED IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

THIS IS A MERE STARTING POINT IN VIEWING OPINIONS AND CREATING A DISCUSSION AND MAY LEAD ME TO INVESTIGATE PERCEPTIONS & JUSTIFICATIONS INTO PLAYING VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES IN THE FUTURE

Discuss :)

I'll just sum it from my point of view.

I play violent videogames all the time. But after playing for a half hour or even all day, that doesn't tend to make me strike out violently towards other in real-life nor impersonate what I see on television in real-life either. Instead, what do violent videogames do for me? Allow me to unload pure aggression in a healthy format that doesn't cause harm to others. What I see on the screen is fake and unrealistic, therefore it doesn't translate to "it can be easily done in real life."

That's just my take on it though.

How doyoufeel about this whole concept? Personal view, not a professional one into the perception of violent games leading to short-term hostility?

I feel like it's just misunderstanding of the whole industry on behalf of the media and parents. Sure, the short term affects are there, but with the right parenting, then short term behavior shouldn't mean anything. I'm sure we've all reached a moment where we were at 'boiling point' but depending on how you have been raised, your reaction will be different. Also... kids shouldn't be playing a games rated outside their age group.

Why do you play these games? Justifications? Are they because they're violent or is the violence simply an extra thing contained within the game?

I play games for the story and to experience different worlds, universes and plots. I just want a break from reality. So for me, violence is a non-issue. Most of the time, I don't even notice it (I play Fallout for the universe, not for VATS. VATS is just something that happens to be in the game). To me, a violent game doesn't make a good game. Saying that, sometimes I DO get impressed with the gore, and can't help but go 'Oooohhh' if it is something rather spectacular or unexpected. Watching my assassin get 'barbered' in Assassins Creed Multiplayer for the first time was pretty impressive, mainly because I didn't expect it to be so in-your-face.

Are your favourite games violent? Why are these your favourite?

My favourite games all have a story I like, as well as a developed world. Some of them are violent, such as the Uncharted series, but games like Ico, Fahrenheit, and SOTC (my all-time favourites) are pretty lax in the gore, focusing on character, environments and creating an epic adventure.

you get to do things you can't do in real life like slaying dragons, travelling in space, anything fantasy is possible in games.

i prefer story over mindless violent games anyway and there aren't many games that have violence in them for no reason.

i have played adult rated gaes for most of my life and i am not an aggressive person whatsoever, although i wouldn't let my child play them all day if i had one but that's not because they're violent it is just because there are other things in life and it is easy to become addicted if you're not doing anything else.

anyone who does carry out acts from video games on other people will have some underlying problems with their life & mental state IMO, games are just used as scapegoats.

there are tons of games which are not violent that i love and some that are, but i don't treat them differently because i don't think it has any effect whatsoever on a normal person.

i prefer story over mindless violent games anyway and there aren't many games that have violence in them for no reason.

PcGamingRig

Yeah, that's the thing. Very few games are randomly violent without stories, and those that are, don't sell well. The issue is games that sell well (meaning they are in alot of gaming collections) tend to include any form of violence. Violence seems to be used as a way in making things more real or grittier within an artifical world in order to make that experience better and more realistic.

e.g:-

• Shooting/stabbing someone and not seeing blood would be weird.
• Mortal Kombat (probably the most mentioned game within game research) - a game that uses 'fighting to the death' concept - without blood or fatalities, fighting to the death wouldn't seem plausible.

I would question any research that came to the conclusion that violent games inherently cause more violent behavior than violent movies or other violent media. Not to diss psychological research but there are just so many factors involved - even if you try to minimize them - that I have a hard time believing it would be possible to pinpoint down games as more harmful than other media, and I would also be interested in knowing how you would eliminate the problem of correlation versus causation (games are an active medium while the others are passive, for example).inoperativeRS

Yeah, i do agree. However, there is some form of evidence that playing games creates more involvement than watching. With regards to watching games, it is extremely similar to the same research of violent media in general.

The problem is the media. They use psychological research and 'mould' the findings to suit them to an objective. They use certain findings and don't include others that are of equally importance. Whereas the actual psychological journals themselves critique their own work - methodology wise, cause-effect issues. And the correlation versus causation is another issue - some state that certain-minded people play those types of violent genres, whereas other studies suggest that those that never played a violent game can enjoy a game, not become violent, and others can - it's all very hit and miss, and it suggests it's both. Which is why i'm more interested into perceptions and justifications rather than simply add to the confusion and mishap that already exists.

Though this issue had been flogged to death, I'm going to take a moment to respond if only address my problems with the language and assertions of your post. For the sake of brevity, here are the bullet points:

"Most games tend to have aggressive or violent elements contained within them."

This is factually incorrect and typifies the type of specious, unchecked allegations that are continuously hurled at this particular medium. Unless you apply an incredibly broad definition of violence that includes Mario stomping on Koopas, the notion that most games employ violence isn't true. To even begin to quantify such a statement, you'd have to take a very broad survey of the medium, which nobody has bothered to do. (At least to my knowledge)

"Games that claim to have aggressive and/or violent elements can lead to aggressive and/or violent behaviour."

This is a particularly fascinating postulation given that there is not a single shred of data that can prove the link between violence and violent media. Currently, the tactic being used by certain researchers is to interchange the words "violence" and "aggression", as if the two concepts are synonymous, which they are clearly not. Merely because playing a violent game makes a person aggressive doesn't mean said aggression is necessarily violent in nature, nor must it manifest in actual violence. I'll concede that playing violent, often competitive games probably does lead to increased aggression but so too does playing or watching sports. Take a look at the violent outbreaks at soccer games all over the globe; does this mean soccer causes violence or does it rather suggest that people who are violent, aggressive or in possession of poor judgment and impulse control just happen to channel those weaknesses through a particular outlet?

"How do you feel about this whole concept? Personal view, not a professional one into the perception of violent games leading to short-term hostility?"

Now here you employ the term hostility, which isn't quite the same as aggression. Why would a person become hostile after playing a game? Are we talking about games that offer person-to-person competition or single player experiences? The notion that a person plays a game and then becomes hostile doesn't make much sense outside of a competitive construct and even then a person becoming truly hostile over playing a game would seem to suggest that person might have pre-existing psychological issuesthatcould be exacerbated by something as benign as losing in Call of Duty. That said, I have seen that level of hostility in people who loose in videogames. I've also seen that same type of hostility when people loose at Monopoly. So why are videogames being singled out?

"Why do you play these games? Justifications? Are they because they're violent or is the violence simply an extra thing contained within the game?"

This strikes me as a bit of a puerile inquiry because what you have done here is distilled the medium into games that are either violent or non-violent and in doing so you've abandoned the minutia and nuances found in all forms of media, gaming included. I've been playing games for three decades and I have played some of the most violent software ever made and the truth is that very few games areforged specifically for the sake of exploiting violence but rather include violence because it fits thematically with the game and its accompanying narrative and aesthetics. Even ultra-violent examples, like Mad World and THQ's Conan, employ violence that is contextually justified within the construct of the narrative and gameplay. By contrast, garbage like Postal 2 was a critical and commercial failure precisely because the game was predicated upon gore and excessive violence rather than a compelling experience. I'm willing to assert that the vast majority of gamers play these violent titles not because of a violent quotient but rather because of quality.

Also, why the need for justification to play a violent game? Does a person need to justify reading a Stephen King Novel? Watching a Scorsese flick? How about going to watch a play as violent as Shakespeare's Macbeth? The term justification is inherently combative because from the outset you are challenging a person to delineate their rationale in regards to why they are playing something, which is both incredibly intrusive and borderline puritanical because by simply asking the question, you've suggested that playing such games requires a justification.

But here's the real question somebody like you should be asking yourself, especially since you seem so entrenched in this issue: why are videogames currently on the chopping block?

The answer: it's a relatively new medium and it is simply its turn. Film, music, comics and even literature have all been placed through this same gauntlet of banality, each medium being attacked by opportunistic politicians with weak arguments buoyed by slanted clinical studies. We've danced this trot before, many times, and ultimately it leads back to the same inevitable conclusion: violent media does not cause violence.

You seem like an incredibly intelligent and articulate person and honestly, I hope you employ your education and skills for a subject that deserves and warrants your attention rather than further feed the flames of this ridiculous non-issue.

How do you feel about this whole concept? Personal view, not a professional one into the perception of violent games leading to short-term hostility?

I feel that many of the studies are unbalance. I under stand that part of the research is to take guess before and to see if the guess is correct but it feel like they make it too much against video games. It like they say when a person flip a coin he/she will get head more often and to prove it they use a 6 side die with head carved on four sides.

I do not see as a large cause of hostilities. I think it is more about people seeing what they want to see and not care or overlooking any thing good from games.

Why do you play these games? Justifications? Are they because they're violent or is the violence simply an extra thing contained within the game?

I play all games for one reason problem solving.It is at the center of all games and video games are the only system that make the person go through all the parts of problem solving. The best games should punish people for not thinking or being too violent. I have Halo 3 kill me when I got to violent and stop thinking. The same for CoD game and many other.

Are your favourite games violent? Why are these your favourite?

I say they are violent. They are violent because many larger games need the conflicts of man vs. man or man vs. nature. They are fun and a metal challenge.

Maybe it's a guy thing and guys like to be competitive. It's a very basic part of the animal instinct in us.

There are many games that are non-violent. But, they tend to be considered as shovelware, girlie/kiddie games, or casual games.

Though this issue had been flogged to death, I'm going to take a moment to respond if only address my problems with the language and assertions of your post. For the sake of brevity, here are the bullet points:

"Most games tend to have aggressive or violent elements contained within them."

This is factually incorrect and typifies the type of specious, unchecked allegations that are continuously hurled at this particular medium. Unless you apply an incredibly broad definition of violence that includes Mario stomping on Koopas, the notion that most games employ violence isn't true. To even begin to quantify such a statement, you'd have to take a very broad survey of the medium, which nobody has bothered to do. (At least to my knowledge)

"Games that claim to have aggressive and/or violent elements can lead to aggressive and/or violent behaviour."

This is a particularly fascinating postulation given that there is not a single shred of data that can prove the link between violence and violent media. Currently, the tactic being used by certain researchers is to interchange the words "violence" and "aggression", as if the two concepts are synonymous, which they are clearly not. Merely because playing a violent game makes a person aggressive doesn't mean said aggression is necessarily violent in nature, nor must it manifest in actual violence. I'll concede that playing violent, often competitive games probably does lead to increased aggression but so too does playing or watching sports. Take a look at the violent outbreaks at soccer games all over the globe; does this mean soccer causes violence or does it rather suggest that people who are violent, aggressive or in possession of poor judgment and impulse control just happen to channel those weaknesses through a particular outlet?

"How do you feel about this whole concept? Personal view, not a professional one into the perception of violent games leading to short-term hostility?"

Now here you employ the term hostility, which isn't quite the same as aggression. Why would a person become hostile after playing a game? Are we talking about games that offer person-to-person competition or single player experiences? The notion that a person plays a game and then becomes hostile doesn't make much sense outside of a competitive construct and even then a person becoming truly hostile over playing a game would seem to suggest that person might have pre-existing psychological issuesthatcould be exacerbated by something as benign as losing in Call of Duty. That said, I have seen that level of hostility in people who loose in videogames. I've also seen that same type of hostility when people loose at Monopoly. So why are videogames being singled out?

"Why do you play these games? Justifications? Are they because they're violent or is the violence simply an extra thing contained within the game?"

This strikes me as a bit of a puerile inquiry because what you have done here is distilled the medium into games that are either violent or non-violent and in doing so you've abandoned the minutia and nuances found in all forms of media, gaming included. I've been playing games for three decades and I have played some of the most violent software ever made and the truth is that very few games areforged specifically for the sake of exploiting violence but rather include violence because it fits thematically with the game and its accompanying narrative and aesthetics. Even ultra-violent examples, like Mad World and THQ's Conan, employ violence that is contextually justified within the construct of the narrative and gameplay. By contrast, garbage like Postal 2 was a critical and commercial failure precisely because the game was predicated upon gore and excessive violence rather than a compelling experience. I'm willing to assert that the vast majority of gamers play these violent titles not because of a violent quotient but rather because of quality.

Also, why the need for justification to play a violent game? Does a person need to justify reading a Stephen King Novel? Watching a Scorsese flick? How about going to watch a play as violent as Shakespeare's Macbeth? The term justification is inherently combative because from the outset you are challenging a person to delineate their rationale in regards to why they are playing something, which is both incredibly intrusive and borderline puritanical because by simply asking the question, you've suggested that playing such games requires a justification.

But here's the real question somebody like you should be asking yourself, especially since you seem so entrenched in this issue: why are videogames currently on the chopping block?

The answer: it's a relatively new medium and it is simply its turn. Film, music, comics and even literature have all been placed through this same gauntlet of banality, each medium being attacked by opportunistic politicians with weak arguments buoyed by slanted clinical studies. We've danced this trot before, many times, and ultimately it leads back to the same inevitable conclusion: violent media does not cause violence.

You seem like an incredibly intelligent and articulate person and honestly, I hope you employ your education and skills for a subject that deserves and warrants your attention rather than further feed the flames of this ridiculous non-issue.

Grammaton-Cleric

Firstly, Thank you. I would point out that the findings i have mentioned are quantitative studies. I aim to do qualitative research into this field for my dissertation. However, it isn't simpy because of them being games. My main interests is the use of language that people use in order to tell opinions and debates (which you have pointed out some errors in my own - apoligies right there). When i mean use of language from a qualitative perspective within psychology, i mean discursive psychology (and discourse analysis), narrative analysis, thematic analysis, content analysis and IPA. Each method is fundamentally different, but what i want to point out is it is not necessary me targeting simply an interest, or an area under-fire (which is agree with you on the past being films and music etc), but the uses of people justifying such things - something which you have done - you've stated something that is meaningful to you and can be interpreted in the way you wanted. The major interest i have is 'how' you said things as well as what is being said. If i wanted, i could of posted violence in general and behaviours but i've picked an under-fire topic on games. So my issue isn't necessarily based on the concept of investigating games and violent behaviour, but how people actually 'talk' about it. Essentially, it could be over anything debatable.

As an example, you've questioned my employment in using skills in such an area with the use of "i hope" and before that you mentioned the opinion of "seeming incredibly intelligent" (Again, i thank you for this assumption) - almost in the good-then-bad setup whilst setting a firm stance on you're own opinions - That's what i'm more interested in, rather than just the topic itself. Again, the 'how' as well as 'what' is being said - more from a discursive standpoint. This most likely answers your issue with justifying playing violent games. If i had changed video games, to violent movies or books, i would still mention justifying or mentioning a need to why do we play/watch/read such things considering i'm looking into the whole concept of perception and justifying from a qualitative psychological standpoint. I too have played games since i could remember and perhaps if i stated i was looking into something that i also agree with you is frivolous (violent games = aggression or/and violent behaviour), then i may have felt the use of justifying playing such games as potentially victimising, or something that is unneeded. Sorry for the confusion.

Now, about the terms on aggression and violence from this point:

Games that claim to have aggressive and/or violent elements can lead to aggressive and/or violent behaviour. 5cott

Yes, you're right the terms are seperate, which is why i used and/or because they're two completely seperate things. I could of included anger, and i would of in an academic setting as anger is more of the emotion, which is also implemented in the research. Now, i probably should have used aggression and hostility more so than the use of violence. There is a problem within definitions, but particularly modern research, the terms are not interchangable. Arguably the best way to describe it is:-

"All violence is aggression, but many instances of aggression are not violent" (Bushman & Anderson, 2002, p.29).

We could argue this even this definition further, like it has been argued for years, but i will make the point that there's more emphasis with aggression rather than violence within video gaming research. Viewing or playing violent games can make people aggressive. Now, with children it's imitation in the form of social learning, but the findings with young adults+ are inconsistent, but there has been some evidence to point out that aggression and forms of hostility (that relate to aggression) have been monitored after playing certain games - just like movies, and music. Again though, it's generally short term.

By playing the game, i did not mean competition online. I meant the violent content that the developers have put in. Competing on its own, is a completely different area and brings other areas to look into with some overlap. As you've mentioned football, i could bring into competing there, temperature, over-crowding and even mood before an event - all of which plays a part and some even in games. But i am more interested in the views of people with regards to violent content - for example, the use of napalm online in blackops and how people justify a particular stance on the subject matter.

Again, thanks for your comment and sorry if i wasn't clear or made errors (and anything that i've missed). I could bore you with tons of studies that have found links between games,books,movies to behaviour (more so with younger than older) but i felt it wasn't entirely relevent to the actual discussion. Again, to emphasise my importance on language and justifications - if i had posted this exact post onto another forum that was not a gaming forum, these responses would be completely different, but the structure of justifying such things remain, to an extent, similar. To be rather predictable and answer your last sentence, i'm actually interested in criminal and health psychology and uses of language within these areas, but with aggression fitting into media and violent criminals always mentioning media influences, it's an interesting topic area.

Anderson, C. A. & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human Aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.

My mistake on the use of 'most'. Probably better sticking with a large proportion of video games contain aggressive or violent content and even this statement is highly subjective. From the barebones, we could even say jumping on a turtle is aggressive (not for me though).

I'll try and stick with certified games like 15+ 18+ etc that are certified because of the aggression and/or violent content.

So, as a starting point, I'm interested in how we feel about this notion that violent games lead to violent behaviour? I mean certificates are there for child safety, just like films, but i'm more concerned with young adults and older being affected.I'm wanting to get a discussion going with regards to this, no right or wrong answers – just a debate. The areas I personally feel should be covered are:-How do you feel about this whole concept? Personal view, not a professional one into the perception of violent games leading to short-term hostility?Why do you play these games? Justifications? Are they because they're violent or is the violence simply an extra thing contained within the game?Are your favourite games violent? Why are these your favourite?5cott

Lets get to your starting point, no I don't believe that violence in VG necessarily leads to violent behaviour, not as much as any other media may lead.Whenever an individual have an innate tendency towards violent behavior though, VG may influence him, there are many triggers to such effect though:

1. Movies (I remember some ten or so years ago some dude killed and boiled people because he saw in a horror B movie that drinking the fat of a boiled virgin could give him immortality...).
2. Tabble top RPG (Some four or five years ago some creep decided he was a vampire and was running around naked - because he needed to be naked in order to be invisible, go figure - trying to bite people's necks. White Wolf's books come with a disclaimer that all within is fictional ever since.).
3. Cartoon (Can't remember any incident right now, but there are lots of violent cartoons).
4. Books ("Meine Kampf" comes to mind... oh, and don't forget the "Holy" wars... so the Bible and other sacred tomes may lead to religious zealot's violence...)

What am I intending to say here is that VG can be a catalist to violent behaviour (As much as any other form of media), but not the source of the problem.

Now, to the topics.

• I don't feel bothered by the concept. Personal opinion stated above.
• I play violent games not because of the violence, it is there though, and it doesn't bother me. As you stated, it's an extra thing.
• My favourite games are usually Strategy (Turn based), RPGs and Action games. RPGs can have their fair cup of violence and gore, but it's ever in the backseat to the history (usually if violence and gore add to the setting and mood, the better, not a necessity though). Action games are a different beast though, some are violent for the sake of violence, and sometimes I use those violent games as a vent to everyday stress.