Billy Perry

Research Paper

English Comp II., Section G

9 June 2010

Video Game Violence & Violence

The controversy on the link between video game violence and actual violence is a

topic among many households and organizations. Can violent video games really create

an aggressive person? Will playing these particular games make someone commit violent

acts? With video games evolving everyday, the controversy only grows larger. Video

games are becoming more realistic and more violent as technology advances. The

primary concern is children under 18, and whether or not they should be allowed to play

these violent and imitable games at all. Critics believe children under the adult age have

not matured enough to view and engage in simulated violent activities. There is no

definitive link between video game violence causing children to become more hostile. In

a sense, it is mere speculation; coming from critics who have never personally engaged in

a video game themselves.

One side strongly believes violent video games will cause violent behaviors.

While the other side sees no feasible evidence between the two, and that violence is the

result of many factors. The opponent tends to use a subjective point of view, bringing up

real life violent situations to appeal to the reader’s emotions. The proponent has a more

relaxed approach, seeing the connection as absurd, and they point out flaws in the

opponents claims. The idea of mature video games advocating violence comes from the

lack of evidence to support a violent act. Researchers examine a case of violence, find no

strong theories and reveal that a child had been involved in playing a game rated for ages

18+ and pin that immediately as a cause. The majority of protestors are parents of

children who may not have necessarily played these games. But as a parent, they feel the

need to reach out and protect their children without probable reasoning behind the

legitimacy of games causing hostility.

This concept is the basis for the release of every video game on the market. The

content of each game is deeply examined to specify the age group it is suitable for.

Advocates say that the youth playing these games, are well aware that the actions taken

on screen are not to be replicated in real life. That children playing them will not go out

and hurt someone after playing a game with considerable violence. Yes, children are

susceptible to imitate what they enjoy, but normally with non-consequential activities

such as, football, soccer and other sports.

There is always some type of media to blame for problems in today’s society.

Most groups seek to find the smallest bit of evidence to support any ridiculous claim they

may have. These types of debates are difficult to completely stop, but bringing forth

proper evidence is the closest any of us can come to picking a side. Parents say it is true.

Children say it is no big deal. So, who is right and who is wrong? One would think to

choose the more experienced user.

On the non-linked side, the articles present are “Video games not necessarily

turning kids’ brains to mush.” by Kevin Maney. And “Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About

Video Games Debunked.” by Henry Jenkins. The opposing articles, “Why Video Games

Really Are Linked To Violence.” by Amanda Schaffer. And “Does game violence make

teens aggressive?” by Kristin Kalning.

After reading through all of the articles, both sides present prominent evidence to

each argument. Both seem to be compelling and factual enough to be true, but mainly

leaves the reader to decide on his/her own based on the given facts or statistics.

The group that feels video games cause aggression and violence in children are

typically focused on numbers and data, rather than experience. These groups are normally

giving out sentences of data based on scientific experimentation through cause and effect.

In the article, “Does game violence make teens aggressive?” by Kristin Kalning, she

specifies certain areas of the brain that can become affected by playing violent video

games. The experiment was for two groups of children to play two separate video games,

one violent, and one non-violent and then immediately conduct MRIs on the children’s

brains after 30 minutes of game play. “The scans showed a negative effect on the brains

of the teens who played ‘Medal of Honor’ for 30 minutes. That same effect was not

present in the kids who played ‘Need for Speed’ (1). By giving a crystal clear picture of

how simply 30 minutes of violent gameplay can affect a child’s brain, the reader begins

to wonder what extended weekly gameplay can do.

By citing very scientific and rational evidence to the reader, one can only question

so much. For some, simple data such as the data presented in Kalning’s article is enough

to convince one into thinking that video game violence is a serious matter and can have

negative psychological effects on a child’s brain. She also states “What’s not clear is

whether the activity picked up by the MRIs indicates a lingering - or worse, permanent -

effect on the kids brain” (2). Approaching the situation the way she did in that sentence

questions if it is even worth experimenting for longer periods of time without knowing

the full result of violent video game exposure. It leads to the question - if scientists would

not even test for longer than 30 minutes, why should one allow his/her child to play for

that same duration? Especially with no outlook on the effects? She has the reader

thinking in long-term settings, and creates a feeling of consideration for parents. This is

so the reader knows that with proven scientific evidence, she can be trusted as a writer.

The next writer, Amanda Schaffer takes a similar approach in her article “ Why

video games really are linked to violence.” An experimentation also took place within her

article to determine the results of violent video games. The experiment was set up the

same as the last, but instead of conducting MRIs, the students were given the

opportunities to attack their opponents with blasts of noise. The study found that the

students that played the violent games, induced longer and louder blasts of noise than the

students who played the non-violent game. She found that “kids who played more violent

video games ‘changed over the school year to become more verbally aggressive, more

physically aggressive’ and less help to others” (1). Schaffer takes the “aggression”

approach, using words that seem frightening. Sending a warning to not only to parents,

but to other children who may run into these “aggressive” children in school.

Schaffer also mentions a few United States tragedies to appeal to the reader’s

emotion, and to further feed the reader’s fear. “The reports are that shooter Lee Boyd

Malvo played the game Halo before his sniper attacks around Washington D.C., and that

Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold loved Doom” (1). Parents may believe

that their child is capable of such horrible acts after he/she is finished playing games.

These kinds of statements create over thinking, and analysis of a child’s behavior. And by

naming popular games that children play, the connection only seems to become clearer to

the reader.

On the opposite side of this debate is Kevin Maney. He brings up valid points in

his article, “Video games not necessarily turning kids’ brains to mush.” Maney, a

technology writer for USA Today, speaks in a more casual and relaxed tone, showing the

reader the situation is not anything to be concerned about. The main goal of the article is

to ease the reader, to make the reader realize that video games aren’t a horrible thing. The

author states, “Video games might be about the best thing your kids can do to ensure their

future success. Better, even, than reading” (1)” This statement is the complete opposite of

every statement made in previous articles riding against these video games. He uses the

word “success” to further illustrate the positive attitude he has towards gaming. He

mentions that video games require decisions, and that practicing decision making skills

can teach a child to become a better person. Learning from consequences, and also

learning from the correct choices.

Maney continues to break apart the negative claims games have on kids minds.

And how playing video games is more of a social idea than a violent one. He mentions

that violence is present, but that it’s everywhere anyway. “Isn’t the violence bad in video

games? Well, yes - but for some reason we don’t worry much about violence in books. So

what if there’s a bloodbath in King Lear? Or boys kill boys in Lord of the Flies? They’re

classics!” (2). By using a comedic approach, the reader can laugh and at the same time,

scratch his/her head thinking about correct his statement is. Many uses no frightening

phrases, and keeps his audience close. His goal isn’t too terrify his reader with scientific

facts, but with points on how education is strong in these video games.

Another writer also sides with Maney on video games having no correlation with

violence in children. Henry Jenkins, a professor at MIT, wrote the article “Reality Bytes:

Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked.” Jenkins does agree that there should be an

age limit on certain video games and that children under 18 should not be able to

purchase these games alone. He sides with parents on that matter, and further discusses

that many dangers rumored to be connected with video games, are not true. Much like

Maney, his writing is very relaxed, and denotative. He gets his points across without any

confusion. Jenkins sees video games as a measurement of values, a special self-character

test. “In the right circumstances, we can be encouraged to examine our own values by

seeing how we behave within virtual space” (3). Jenkins suggests that by facing tough

decisions in-game can reflect how a someone may act in real life. By presenting these

decisions to young children, they begin to learn how correct actions can have positive

results.

The opponents may argue that a child may make a bad decision within a video

game, and translate those decisions into the real world. The child would have an altered

vision of how consequences work in reality as opposed to ones in-game. But Jenkins

states “Classic studies of play behavior among primates suggest that apes make basic

distinctions between play fighting and actual combat” (3). This contrast shows that if

apes can understand a simulated fight, than surely a child can as well. Leaving a parent to

believe that his/her child is fully capable of distinguishing between what is fine in the

video game world, with what is wrong in the real world.

This debate is always one that will have no definitive answer. Basing one’s

decision on articles similar to the ones presented seems to be the only logical way to pick

a side without playing these games themselves. Both sides have valid arguments, through

scientific study and research. I believe violence is the factor of many things, and cannot

be directly linked to violent video games. Frustration and aggression will always be

present in video games, but that is what makes these games more fun to play. Becoming

frustrated makes one appreciate accomplishing something in a game even more once the

frustrating task is finally completed.

I do not think a child can turn violent from playing these types of games, unless

there is some other underlying cause. I also believe that the rating system remains how it

is, and children under 18 should not be allowed to purchase games that are rated mature.

The video game industry constantly has advances in realism and this controversy will

only grow larger. Engaging in the games themselves, and playing them is the only real

way to tell whether or not this form of entertainment has a negative effect on a child.