Video Game Violence... Are They Really a Danger to Society?

I think this certain topic within Video gaming and media as a whole has been a very debateable one ever since the dawn of violence within video games in the 80's. Evolutioned from hundreds of red square pixels spraying everywhere at the pull of a trigger, right down to the realistic depiction of someone being gutted with a chainsaw, orgetting his head smashed into dust with a baseball bat.

We can all understand that sadist violence like this can cause abit of an uproar, especially if its sole purpose is pure entertainment. However, is it really harmful to the people who play these games. Who is to blame? Is it the game developers, is it the parents, is it the lack of strictness within buissnesses in selling these games to the young and naive, or is it the press?

Many games have being under the spotlight with such controversy; including theGrand theft auto series, Doom (especially after the school murders that happened awile back), and, ofcorse not to forget, perhaps one of the most notorious games to have being criticised for its "influential" content, Manhunt.

Im writing as book on the effects of media violence on society, so it would be a huge help if you could contribute and let me know exactly what you think, with absolute honesty. You can even refer to other types of media text (violence in T.V and film, the 'Video Nasty' era etc.)

Looking forward to hear what you think

Thank you :)

If you do write this book and come to the conclusion that they are harmful, you will be cast in some pile right next to the guys that said rock music, comic books, and pornography would cause the downfall of man.

Your grip on reality affects how you deal with violence in any medium. I laugh when I play Doom because it's silly and great fun. Dylan Klebold from Columbine laughed because it fueled his psychopathic need for violence. The game didn't turn him into a killer, since I would be right along with him if that were true. I play a great deal of violent video games and while the occasional blood splatter might raise my heart rate or aggression temporarly or whatever, I can't begin to accept scientsts claims that it will destroy me as a person.

You know what... I couldnt of put it better myself. I know that Im researching this but if anyone asked for my ownopinion... I would have to say that it a loads of **** the idea of being brainwashed into violence, by what people call "Image training".

I mean just like you... Ive played a rediculus amount of violentvideo games (Manhunt, Doom trilogy, Die Hard trilogy, Project Overkill, GTA, Resident Evil, Quake etc etc.) But the only urge Ive ever felt after playing these games is getting hungry and wanting a beer lol.

I just think Britain and other parts of Europe are just so up-tight and proud, that they dont even want to think of the slightest idea that these people who commit these'copycat'crimeshave something genuinely wrong with them in the first place. They want a red-herring, something to point the blame at.

Take this one for example: The Jamie Bulger case back in 1993: Two 10 year oldboys kidnapped a 2 year old kid from a shopping centre, and killed him on a railway track 2 miles away from the shoppingcentre. Then the press started blaming the movie 'Childs Play 3', with NO evidence what so ever, except of the "close resemblance" to one of the scenes to the actual crime :| However the parents, or the two ten-year-olds never owned the film and both of the boys stated that they have never seen the film.

I mean what the hell does it matter what a criminal has watched or seen in their spare time!?

Neway it wil be abit of a pain in the ass since I shouldnt really bring my own opinion into perspective. However that is genuinely what I think, just like you.

Thanks for your comment... much appreciated

well simply said i think video games are a danger to society

Oh and the 'video nasties' were the new wave ofTaboo and extreme violentfilms from all over the world (mainly Italy and the U.S) during the mid 1970's and 80's. These filmswere seen as'unfit for domestic viewing' due to the explicitcontent. This led to many of these films getting banned and the establishment of the Video recordings act, because when these films were getting distributed, there were no film certificates, so anyone of any age could go and see what they like :PAnthraxAngel

Such films as The Driller Killer, Nightmares On A Damaged Brain, Last House On The Left etc.

I think it all has to do with the maturity and the state of mind someone has. There are millions of people playing video games now a days, and as video games have been becoming more popular school has been decreasing despite the way the media portrays it. It's up to the parents as well to decide whether or not their children can play certain video games or any video games at all. Let's face it, every child isn't smart enough to know any better.

well simply said i think video games are a danger to society

milosbeli

Great contribution.

All things can be a danger, so that is a very broad phrase to use.

But I always considered it this way: if you never played an FPS similar style of game, would you ever be exposed to pulling off a headshot? Would the idea of a headshot ever cross your mind? If so, how would you feel about pulling off a headshot?

Now if we HAVE played an FPS or similar style of game, pulling off a headshot is second nature.

So what does that mean? That playing such games has desensitized us, to some degree, to the idea of pulling off a headshot. That's not to say that we would EVER do something like that in the real world. That's an oversimplification of this point. But we have been desensitized to the horror of doing such a thing in comparison to one that doesn't play such games.

What does that mean for society? It's not for me to say.

As stated before, it all depends on the person playing/viewing the content.

If an unstable person gets ahold of a copy of GTA:SA and thinks that they can do whatever they want in real life and have no reprocussions then the person shouldn't be playing the game in the first place.

Remember a long while ago when FFVII just had come out, and these two teens broke into an elderly couple's house and killed them (I'm not sure aboutthe exact details)? Well, when they were arrested, the media blamed FFVII for it because one of the the teens had it on their computer, and they both went by the Aliases of Cloud and Sepheroth.The killing had no resmblence to anything in the game, so it was unjustly accused.

There's more, but I need to keep writting this report, sorry.

My personal favourite out of the video nasties is Zombie flesh eaters (the unofficial sequel to night of the living dead lol), just the mere fact that Im a huge fan of zombie flicks. But I also love Texas Chainsaw, ofcorse, and Nightmare of a damaged brain.

Its like as if many filmmakers, independant onesin particular cant be as daring or original as theycould be compared to the old days, because of Hollywood. Seriously, I mean I know its totally goin off the point of this discussion. But it just pisses me off that Hollywood cant think up of anything original anymore. For example; the upcoming films Hitman, Max Payne and MGS!?Aswell as the never ending number of sequels, prequels, remakes etc. Dont get me wrong, Im looking forward to how Max Payne and MGS will turn out on the big screen. HoweverThe film industry needs a kick in the ass.

All things can be a danger, so that is a very broad phrase to use.

But I always considered it this way: if you never played an FPS similar style of game, would you ever be exposed to pulling off a headshot? Would the idea of a headshot ever cross your mind? If so, how would you feel about pulling off a headshot?

Now if we HAVE played an FPS or similar style of game, pulling off a headshot is second nature.

So what does that mean? That playing such games has desensitized us, to some degree, to the idea of pulling off a headshot. That's not to say that we would EVER do something like that in the real world. That's an oversimplification of this point. But we have been desensitized to the horror of doing such a thing in comparison to one that doesn't play such games.

What does that mean for society? It's not for me to say.

Darth_Tigris

I doubt that is the case at all for any sane person. I'm pretty sure any level of desensitization stops entirely at videogames and killing polygons. No sane person can kill real people as casually as they do the Combine. I don't even think they can hear a story about someone being shot in the head and be that emotionally unattached.

Why? Because thats pretty much what defines insanity. If you have no ability to distinguish between real life and fantasy then you are insane.

As stated before, it all depends on the person playing/viewing the content.

If an unstable person gets ahold of a copy of GTA:SA and thinks that they can do whatever they want in real life and have no reprocussions then the person shouldn't be playing the game in the first place.

Remember a long while ago when FFVII just had come out, and these two teens broke into an elderly couple's house and killed them (I'm not sure aboutthe exact details)? Well, when they were arrested, the media blamed FFVII for it because one of the the teens had it on their computer, and they both went by the Aliases of Cloud and Sepheroth.The killing had no resmblence to anything in the game, so it was unjustly accused.

There's more, but I need to keep writting this report, sorry.

Stavr0s

Yeah, if we were to ban everything that has inspired or caused someone to murder another, then we'd all be locked in an empty room with our eyes and ears closed shut.

People who believe that the media causes violence in teens and children have to be some lifeless idiots. I've played violent games since I was seven years old, starting with Killer Instinct (SNES). Some of my friends played violent games when they were younger than that. Our parents didn't put that age restriction crap on what we watched/played/listened to and none of us tried to emulate dangerous things that we saw or heard. Plus, most of us (including me) are in college now.

Plenty of parents come home drunk and abuse their spouse and/or kids. Why don't they (the Government or whoever) ban liquor? People smoke in front of kids before the kids even know what secondhand smoke is. Why aren't cigarettes getting banned? Last I heard, liqour and cigarettes are two of the leading causes of death in the country.

Look at video games. Look at tag. Look at certain cereals. They (and plenty of other things) are made/marketed mostly toward children and they're either banned (in some places) or in talks to be banned. This might come as a shock to some people but... most of them never killed anyone.

My point is, every time the youth likes something, chauvinists will use every excuse in the book to keep it from them. Rock & Roll was the Devil's music, video games turn kids into killers, Bratz inspire little girls to want to grow up to be prostitutes, and the list goes on. The video game debate is just another chapter in the Older vs. Younger Generation Debate, a.k.a. only-bad-when-the-youth-does-it.

I think that trying to imply that the violence, sadism, bleakness and apathy that are the hallmarks of life in modern North America, are causedby violent video games is a bit of a stretch to say the least... it's a poor, weak, broken excuse if you ask me. The real danger to society are people who want to blame forms of media/entertainment for the down-turn in basic civility and decency, and not address the real causes of violence in our society.

[QUOTE="Darth_Tigris"]

All things can be a danger, so that is a very broad phrase to use.

But I always considered it this way: if you never played an FPS similar style of game, would you ever be exposed to pulling off a headshot? Would the idea of a headshot ever cross your mind? If so, how would you feel about pulling off a headshot?

Now if we HAVE played an FPS or similar style of game, pulling off a headshot is second nature.

So what does that mean? That playing such games has desensitized us, to some degree, to the idea of pulling off a headshot. That's not to say that we would EVER do something like that in the real world. That's an oversimplification of this point. But we have been desensitized to the horror of doing such a thing in comparison to one that doesn't play such games.

What does that mean for society? It's not for me to say.

H3LLRaiseR

I doubt that is the case at all for any sane person. I'm pretty sure any level of desensitization stops entirely at videogames and killing polygons. No sane person can kill real people as casually as they do the Combine. I don't even think they can hear a story about someone being shot in the head and be that emotionally unattached.

Why? Because thats pretty much what defines insanity. If you have no ability to distinguish between real life and fantasy then you are insane.

See, here is what frustrates me whenever I try to have an intelligent conversation about this subject with most fellow gamers. Re-read what I typed and I NEVER ONCE blamed gaming for real life violence. I never even made a connection between the two. My only point is that gaming violence can desensitize us.

Desensitize defined:

2:to make emotionally insensitive or callous; specifically :to extinguish an emotional response (as of fear, anxiety, or guilt) to stimuli that formerly induced it

If anyone says that, as in my original example, that constantly pulling off headshots in games doesn't desensitize us to the idea of pulling of a headshot in general, then they are not being reasonable. Again, as I stated in my original statements, THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL EVER DO A HEADSHOT IN REAL LIFE! But that doesn't mean that it doesn't affect us, as in desensitizing our minds to the idea of doing such a thing.

To give you an example, when I first played RE4, I felt horrible for shooting village women in the face with a freakin' shotgun. Think about that for a moment and it makes sense. But the more I played the game, it didn't bother me near as much to do that over and over and over and over. I got desensitized to the action. It wasn't as shocking or horrible anymore.

That is my point. Nothing more. So don't group me with Hilary Clinton or Jack Thompson, because I'm not saying what they are saying or trying to argue their point.

Well, everything you do affects your mind in some way. That is pretty hard to dispute.

However, I would say that video game violence, if it poses any danger at all, does not come anywhere near causing the amount of harm of something like alcohol, and alcohol is accepted as legal despite its well-documented negative consquences, including but not limited to all of the DUI-related fatalities that occur. Therefore...

See, here is what frustrates me whenever I try to have an intelligent conversation about this subject with most fellow gamers. Re-read what I typed and I NEVER ONCE blamed gaming for real life violence. I never even made a connection between the two. My only point is that gaming violence can desensitize us.

Desensitize defined:

2:to make emotionally insensitive or callous; specifically :to extinguish an emotional response (as of fear, anxiety, or guilt) to stimuli that formerly induced it

If anyone says that, as in my original example, that constantly pulling off headshots in games doesn't desensitize us to the idea of pulling of a headshot in general, then they are not being reasonable. Again, as I stated in my original statements, THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL EVER DO A HEADSHOT IN REAL LIFE! But that doesn't mean that it doesn't affect us, as in desensitizing our minds to the idea of doing such a thing.

To give you an example, when I first played RE4, I felt horrible for shooting village women in the face with a freakin' shotgun. Think about that for a moment and it makes sense. But the more I played the game, it didn't bother me near as much to do that over and over and over and over. I got desensitized to the action. It wasn't as shocking or horrible anymore.

That is my point. Nothing more. So don't group me with Hilary Clinton or Jack Thompson, because I'm not saying what they are saying or trying to argue their point.

Darth_Tigris

You'd save yourself some frustration if you did a little more re-reading. No where in my response did I accuse you of saying videogames cause violence. I have no idea how you even saw that in my statement.

If you honestly believe that Resident Evil has made it any easier for you to shoot a real woman in the face, see a real woman get shot in the face, or even hear about a real woman getting shot in the face.. then you are exactly the type of person that shouldn't be playing these games.

If you were sane and capable of drawing a line between real life and fantasy, then any desensitization you've experience ends at killing lifeless polygons in a videogame. It should have zero impact on your emotions toward living things.

[QUOTE="Darth_Tigris"]

See, here is what frustrates me whenever I try to have an intelligent conversation about this subject with most fellow gamers. Re-read what I typed and I NEVER ONCE blamed gaming for real life violence. I never even made a connection between the two. My only point is that gaming violence can desensitize us.

Desensitize defined:

2:to make emotionally insensitive or callous; specifically :to extinguish an emotional response (as of fear, anxiety, or guilt) to stimuli that formerly induced it

If anyone says that, as in my original example, that constantly pulling off headshots in games doesn't desensitize us to the idea of pulling of a headshot in general, then they are not being reasonable. Again, as I stated in my original statements, THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL EVER DO A HEADSHOT IN REAL LIFE! But that doesn't mean that it doesn't affect us, as in desensitizing our minds to the idea of doing such a thing.

To give you an example, when I first played RE4, I felt horrible for shooting village women in the face with a freakin' shotgun. Think about that for a moment and it makes sense. But the more I played the game, it didn't bother me near as much to do that over and over and over and over. I got desensitized to the action. It wasn't as shocking or horrible anymore.

That is my point. Nothing more. So don't group me with Hilary Clinton or Jack Thompson, because I'm not saying what they are saying or trying to argue their point.

H3LLRaiseR

You'd save yourself some frustration if you did a little more re-reading. No where in my response did I accuse you of saying videogames cause violence. I have no idea how you even saw that in my statement.

If you honestly believe that Resident Evil has made it any easier for you to shoot a real woman in the face, see a real woman get shot in the face, or even hear about a real woman getting shot in the face.. then you are exactly the type of person that shouldn't be playing these games.

If you were sane and capable of drawing a line between real life and fantasy, then any desensitization you've experience ends at killing lifeless polygons in a videogame. It should have zero impact on your emotions toward living things.

You still don't see what I'm saying, and I know I can't force you. I gave a definition from the dictionary of what it means to be desensitized and then gave an example in the realm of gaming, but you still intepret it as "real versus fake" when that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Its like people are afraid that admitting this is tantamount to saying that Jack Thompson is right when its NOT. If you watch a rape in a movie once, it is typically shocking and disturbing. If you saw 50,000 movie rapes, then its unquestionable that number 50,000 will not bother you as much as number 1 did. THAT is what it means to desensitize. Its not about whether something is real or fake. Its about how you respond to it initially versus how you respond to it over repeated exposure. People walk barefoot enough and their feet become desensitized to the rough texture of rocky sand or gravel.

Is this really that hard to understand?

You still don't see what I'm saying, and I know I can't force you. I gave a definition from the dictionary of what it means to be desensitized and then gave an example in the realm of gaming, but you still intepret it as "real versus fake" when that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Its like people are afraid that admitting this is tantamount to saying that Jack Thompson is right when its NOT. If you watch a rape in a movie once, it is typically shocking and disturbing. If you saw 50,000 movie rapes, then its unquestionable that number 50,000 will not bother you as much as number 1 did. THAT is what it means to desensitize. Its not about whether something is real or fake. Its about how you respond to it initially versus how you respond to it over repeated exposure. People walk barefoot enough and their feet become desensitized to the rough texture of rocky sand or gravel.

Is this really that hard to understand?

Darth_Tigris

I agree with Hellraiser. I have seen thousands if not millions of buildings knocked down in videogames and movies over the years, but nothing I felt during any of those movies/videogames in any way approximated the feelings I felt as I watched the Twin Towers fall. Also, seeing a guy get shot and killed in real life is a heck of a lot different than watching a stuntman take a dive in some movie or watching a bunch of polygons ragdoll in a videogame.

I'm gonna have to agree with the majority and say that video game violence has absolutely nothing to do with real life violence. People were violent against each other in all kinds of sadistic, screwed up ways LONG before video games were even thought of.

Yeah, of course you get desensitized to the violence in games if you play enough of them. When I first started playing RE4 and doing things like shooting people in the head and getting Leon's head chopped off with a chainsaw, I was somewhat shocked at the level of gore. By the time I finished the game, it didn't make me bat an eye. But hell, everyone in modern day society is desensitized to media violence to a greater or lesser extent. And of course it's not just video games, either--movies like Saw are 10x worse than anything I've seen in ANY game.

But being desensitized to it in the media =/= being dangerous. Unless you're one of the few mentally disturbed people that genuinely can't distinguish between fiction and reality, you still know it's just pixels on a TV screen. Even when you're watching people getting tortured in Saw, you know it's nothing more than special effects. If you were to see anything of the sort happening in real life, there's no WAY you'd be able to sit and watch without batting an eye like you do when it's in the media. No one could.

So...no, I don't think video game violence is a danger to society in any way. It's just something for people to blame when bad things happen so they don't have to take any kind of responsibility. After all, rock and roll is the devil's music and corrupts our children, right? ;)

Hey, there's always a choice. You don't have to play violent videogames. You can be pretty happy with stuff like Viva Pinata , Mario Galaxy or Guitar Hero.

Granted, games are more interactive, and so parents should always take stock of what their kids are playing.

I'm gonna have to agree with the majority and say that video game violence has absolutely nothing to do with real life violence. People were violent against each other in all kinds of sadistic, screwed up ways LONG before video games were even thought of.

Yeah, of course you get desensitized to the violence in games if you play enough of them. When I first started playing RE4 and doing things like shooting people in the head and getting Leon's head chopped off with a chainsaw, I was somewhat shocked at the level of gore. By the time I finished the game, it didn't make me bat an eye. But hell, everyone in modern day society is desensitized to media violence to a greater or lesser extent. And of course it's not just video games, either--movies like Saw are 10x worse than anything I've seen in ANY game.

But being desensitized to it in the media =/= being dangerous. Unless you're one of the few mentally disturbed people that genuinely can't distinguish between fiction and reality, you still know it's just pixels on a TV screen. Even when you're watching people getting tortured in Saw, you know it's nothing more than special effects. If you were to see anything of the sort happening in real life, there's no WAY you'd be able to sit and watch without batting an eye like you do when it's in the media. No one could.

So...no, I don't think video game violence is a danger to society in any way. It's just something for people to blame when bad things happen so they don't have to take any kind of responsibility. After all, rock and roll is the devil's music and corrupts our children, right? ;)

Abby88

See, that was all that I was trying to say (BOLDED). Thanks for acknowledging it and recognizing that it is separate from the other issue.

What you stated about real vs. fake is funny, though. It reminded me of a friend of mine that is a firefighter. He actually said the gore in movies bothers him more than the HORRIFIC gore he's seen in real life. I always thought that was strange, but if anything it illustrates that the 'real vs. fake' discussion is far more complicated than both sides of the argument are willing to admit ...

You still don't see what I'm saying, and I know I can't force you. I gave a definition from the dictionary of what it means to be desensitized and then gave an example in the realm of gaming, but you still intepret it as "real versus fake" when that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Its like people are afraid that admitting this is tantamount to saying that Jack Thompson is right when its NOT. If you watch a rape in a movie once, it is typically shocking and disturbing. If you saw 50,000 movie rapes, then its unquestionable that number 50,000 will not bother you as much as number 1 did. THAT is what it means to desensitize. Its not about whether something is real or fake. Its about how you respond to it initially versus how you respond to it over repeated exposure. People walk barefoot enough and their feet become desensitized to the rough texture of rocky sand or gravel.

Is this really that hard to understand?

Darth_Tigris

I know exactly what you are saying and I fully understand what it means to be desensitized. My point is that there is a huge difference in being desensitized to a headshot in a videogame vs a headshot in real life. In none of your statements have you made that distinction clear, which is why I responded.

If you become desensitized to shooting polygons, who cares? If you can watch 50000 movies about rape without blinking an eye, so what? If that bleeds over into your emotions regarding those things in real life, then there is a definate problem.

[QUOTE="Darth_Tigris"]

You still don't see what I'm saying, and I know I can't force you. I gave a definition from the dictionary of what it means to be desensitized and then gave an example in the realm of gaming, but you still intepret it as "real versus fake" when that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Its like people are afraid that admitting this is tantamount to saying that Jack Thompson is right when its NOT. If you watch a rape in a movie once, it is typically shocking and disturbing. If you saw 50,000 movie rapes, then its unquestionable that number 50,000 will not bother you as much as number 1 did. THAT is what it means to desensitize. Its not about whether something is real or fake. Its about how you respond to it initially versus how you respond to it over repeated exposure. People walk barefoot enough and their feet become desensitized to the rough texture of rocky sand or gravel.

Is this really that hard to understand?

H3LLRaiseR

I know exactly what you are saying and I fully understand what it means to be desensitized. My point is that there is a huge difference in being desensitized to a headshot in a videogame vs a headshot in real life. In none of your statements have you made that distinction clear, which is why I responded.

If you become desensitized to shooting polygons, who cares? If you can watch 50000 movies about rape without blinking an eye, so what? If that bleeds over into your emotions regarding those things in real life, then there is a definate problem.

But people don't feel that way about everything. They're selective with the things they like and enjoy. Take for instance child pornography. If we found out that someone was watching it 6 hours a day 5 days a week, he would be unquestionably labeled as a pedofile. Why? He didn't actually DO anything to a child? Still, we would say that it was unhealthy for someone to watch that much (actually, any at all) because he's bound to ACT on it eventually. He's densensitized to the act by watching so much of it.

So why aren't we like that with games and movies when it comes to drug use and violence, even rape (and yes, I know child pornography involves actual real children and the acts are really happening, but the viewer isn't an activeparticipant)?

For the record I'm not taking a side on this issue. I'm just provoking thought. Society seems to often be selective about when to come to certain conclusions and when not to.

I think that any sane, logical person can tell you that violence in games does not make/train people to be killers. Anyone who would go out and murder innocent people was obviously unstable to begin with. And any connection between them and videogames has been circumstantial at best. It's been said that games like DOOM and Halo trained people to use weapons, which is absolutely ludicrous since holding a controller/mouse is nothing like holding an actual gun. I have played every genre of game for about 20 years now and I haven't done anything violent.

It's just another political scapegoat like rock music and comic books.

one of the ways i look at this is that it's a revolving cycle that feeds itself and just grows beyond to great measure. here it goes.

Step 1: Devs make a new game, in order for this to make good sales, they would look for what's good out now, what's selling loads of cash atm. say it is blood, violence, sexual themes, they toss that into the game, the pubs do werk and they sell it. Some devs don't care what's in the game, as long as it's no AO and it's what's selling good now, they will do it knowing they won't go empty handed.

Step 2: a few weeks after game is out, suppose it sells well, so the local news or national news reporters will get onto this game and try to get an interesting story because they want the MONEY they get from getting onto a touchy topic. So they broadcast this on the news claiming it's impairing children. training them to be killers. thus spawns this game some fame.

Step 3: because this game is shown on TV, more consumers become curious of this game and buy it. the sales increase and it's posted up in websites and on the news even more.

Step 4: the devs of this game look at what's happening and figure a formula: Controversial content = more publicity = more sales! thus they go back and do step 1 again...wash, rinse, dry, repeat.

this is good for the media and videogame industry alike! the "deal" goes, devs make controversial stuff, they broadcast it on the air on something such as "VIOLENCE IN GAMES" and they get higher ratings.