Do Video Games Make You Violent? An In-Depth Analysis

Im sure this has already been said but little kids dont need to be playing M rated games. This is a rating there for a reason. Do video games make someone "violent?" IMO, no. Maybe for children who don't know any better who lack actual parenting. I mean, you might get pissed and throw the controller or punch your tv, but that does not cause someone to go shoot people. If the question is "Do video games INSPIRE people to become violent?" I would say hardly... but movies are much much more effective as an "inspiration" than any video game these days. What I mean by inspiration, if you haven't already guessed is this: A mentally ill child/teenager/ or even "adult" watches...say...The Dark Knight (2nd batman movie with the Joker) then they might be "inspired" by what Heath Ledger's character, the Joker, does. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the Joker's "it's all part of the plan" philosophy. That same philosophy a mentally ill person could easily take too far. In video games, the characters hardly have any reasoning or thoughts for what they do... their either obviously good or bad and there's no question about it. With that being said, IMO, the anti-violence hammer needs to be slammed down on movies, not video games.

Oops

that*** lack actual parenting.

The reality behind the subject matter is all tied into politics, scaretactics and diversion. Never mind the fact that these crazy kids are able to aquire guns because they're littered around the country, no.. let's blame video games. Yes, we (the gamers) are (as you say) sick and tired of hearing about all these *****s that are trying to make games the new devil. Articles like these are just made to troll for debates.

2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment is intended to restrict the government's powers by forbidding them from seizing weapons from citizens. It's based not on the right to "take up arms against a common enemy," but on the right to defend one's self from an agressor (be this a home invader, mugger, etc., or even the gov't itself).

As this relates to the government not banning certain types of guns... It is not their place to do so (as established by the Second Amendment and the fact that it would end political careers). Although I agree that they need to take meaningful action instead of playing politics, none of the proposals from so-called "serious" gun-control leaders would do anything but create a false sense of security (see: wouldn't meaningfully impact net gun crime).

I really do get tired of hearing these types of comments. Has anyone ever considered the possibility that if its not safe for kids, then it may not be safe for adults either? If there is anything you want a kids to strive toward possessing, tell them they can't have it until they turn of age. Restricting kids from anything is one sure fire way of making sure they strive toward a goal of no longer having the restriction.

And the parenting thing, some kids grow up to spite their parents regardless of how they were raised. Pointing a finger at parents is as absurd as pointing a finger at games.

Only if all of cognitive psychology is wrong. Video games are a consumer item...They expose children to ideas and concepts. Parents and the culture they choose to immerse their children in determine how that exposure is processed and and later applied. Statistical outliers who develop away from the mean are hardly a refutation of the general theory.

For those who are disusing the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution here is the exact text:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

To me that says I should have the right to own any weapon to defend my self and family from other individuals, outside threats, and even our own gov't.

As for all this discussion of whether not violent video games lead to more aggressive behavior - I personally do not think it by itself does, and that their are too many variables in any experient to draw a definitive conclusion. To property test this you would have to bring in a group of children with the same age, race, moral and ethical background, home life, personalities, etc - ie: clones of each other. If "Timmy" shows more aggressive behavior after playing violent video games, then there must be a connection! Lets not take into account that Timmy is already a rather aggressive kid who's father is a **** and yells at him every night. Or that Bob doesn't show an increase in aggressive behavior, but it wasn't taken into account that both his parents are pacifist who are very polite and well manor, along with their son. Overall, their are too many variables to diffidently test this.

And IMO I think it has to do more with the patently and the child's home life. I have been exposed to violent media a fair amount in my life, and probably some of it too young. I was bullied, I had/have plenty of access to firearms, but I never had the urge to shoot of my school. I am not considered an aggressive person my my friends and co-workers.

Someone was arguing that more gun control would fix this. I disagree. The area I live in a semi-rural area. Just about every house hold has a firearm or six. Hunting is state-wide pass time, and is more or less a month long holiday here. Asking time off for hunting is perfectly normal, and most business slow way down during hunting season (except the sporting good stores ). Everyone of my friend who was raised here owns a gun, and by the age of 10 knew how to shoot it and was instructed in proper gun safety. There has never been a school shooting in my state.

Children expose children to ideas and concepts. Hardly something you can blame on a specific parent, when a completely different parent in the same school was the weak link. What makes matters worse is the thought of how many years these ideas and concepts have been circulating. You see it's not something any one parent can control.

Ok, I sort of missed the whole point of the 2nd Amendment...It was some time ago that I read them and I'd forgotten those points (well, the whole point really!).
My apologies for not researching first.

And I agree that anyone should be able to defend their home, thier families and themselves. Over here, if someone breaks in the best you can do is watch them rob you....Or was that revised recently as well...? lol...Off to do some reading I think...

I laugh when I see all the studies showing "proof" of aggression being sweating, rising blood pressure, accelerated breathing, etc. Guess what? People get that way playing Monopoly, Chess, Checkers and Bridge.

I had to get near the end of the article before I saw the definitive word on this - competition. It's competition that makes the game a game. People don't mow down other people in CoD because they get a hard-on looking at the blood splatters - it's because they're winning the competition.

I have no doubt that adventure/action games and movies generates aggressiveness. After I saw the Matrix I wanted to jump into that world big-time and become a kung-fu, machine gunnin' fool. But that lasted about 5 minutes because I'm a normal, rational human being.

Tens of millions play computer games each and every day. And at the end of their play session they don't grab some guns and head to the nearest school for a little blood-letting. The politicians - wanting to make themselves look like they're doing something - want an easy scapegoat, so they conveniently point fingers at games and movies. Because addressing the real problem, which is mental illness and gun security is too hard

How about we not blame the 160 million people who play games and manage to get along just fine in life for the actions of 6 (who are coincidentally broken inside) that commit these heinous crimes against humanity?

Your premise is correct, but I have a difficult time agreeing with your conclusion.

Here's my argument: Children are exposed to ideas and concepts throughout their development. While it is true that parents cannot exert an absolute control over what their children are exposed to, they do exert a primary influence by (1) choosing the dominant culture that their children are exposed to, (2) identifying positive and negative influences and attempting to eliminate the latter, and (3) teaching their children effective coping skills through both direct and indirect communication (which enables them to effectively handle peer pressure, cultural and interpersonal conflicts, emotions, etc.). As a result, effective parenting plays a major role in shaping non-genetic cognitive factors; most significantly, as it pertains to the discussion topic, the the ability to empathize and establish a rational sense of morality.

Does this mean that parents can simply mold children's minds into whatever they deem desirable with proper shrewdness and savvy? No. Outside influences are too numerous to effectively mitigate and "ruling with an iron fist" would undermine individuality and likely cause the child to rebel, both points you've touched on. Moreover, genetic factors are completely uncontrollable. If someone is born with a sociopathic personality, you won't be able to deprogram it by showing them how great altruism is or by going full medieval and quite literally beating Jesus into them.

Nevertheless, parenting still plays the lead role in early childhood and adolescent development because effective parenting nurtures beneficial cognitive skills and mitigates negative ones. As such, it is not a trivial aspect of the problem. By contrast, video games are a trivial influence because they do not attempt to exert their influence upon users, they just provide a consumable (fantasy). How that fantasy is digested depends on individual cognition, which we've determined is highly affected by parenting.

Therefore, blaming bad parenting for producing bad apples is not silly, as is the practice of blaming the crop on video games. The criticism isn't faultless by any means, but it is far more worthwhile to investigate than this tripe about violence in media.

davislane1
I agree with you, my comment was for the guest above, making a black and white statement that bad kids come from bad parents. There are so many variables, you simply can not point a finger at any one variable without knowing the facts of each isolated case.

If video games do induce agression in some people, I would tend to think that is is in a very short-term manner (perhaps just a few minutes until the person winds down). There are so many ways these days to trigger agression (bad drivers anyone?), blaming one thing would be ridiculous. Maybe people with psychological problems would be more easily affected by video game violence, but then wouldn't they be more prone to react to outside stimulus as well?

There's even other studies which suggest, on the contrary, that violent games stimulate certain brain parts and are generally beneficial when measuring brain performance. There is a TED presentation on this and it's really worth taking a look: http://on.ted.com/eMC0

I don't believe for a second that violent video games make their targeted audience of adult players violent, however there are a TON of impressionable underage players I believe they do affect. In my opinion, the only ones to blame for documented cases of video game violence are the bad, irresponsible parents that buy their bratty kids whatever game they want in order to electronically babysit them.

Its not video games its these ***** parents these days not teaching their kids values and morals and disciplining them when they need to be taught a lesson. Parents these days let their kids run wild and control them. Ive played just about every violent video game and I dont plan on going on a killing spree. Yes I get extremly frustrated at any kind of game but because I am such a competitive person I cannot accept losing. My parents kept me in check and taught me values and morals. Every problem these days the media and people blame something else and make that the scapegoat while the real reason is todays society parenting is a joke. The family has become a joke and kids are not being brought up in the right atmosphere and values. That kid that shot up that school showed signs of instability yet his parent didnt do anything to get the help he needed. Media and government is using games as a scapegoat instead of facing the real reason head on because its not poltically correct to say parents discipline your goddam spoiled kids.

"Michael Ward: Yes, I've always studied telecommunications, internet and what they call ICTs in general, and videogames seemed like some place that had not been done very well very much by economists yet. And so I also have children who play video games, they thought it was really cool that their dad was studying what they were playing.

So the first thing I did was got a proxy for demand for video games in different areas of the country, which is the number of video games stores, and related that to the amount of crime in each of these areas. And I found that when the number of stores increased in an area, the amount of...a number of different measures of crime actually fall. That [raises] the question; why does this happen?"

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/mike-ward/3991432

I got Unreal when I was 8 and I haven't killed any one yet...

Im not saying these people go out and kill people, im saying that every kid I know that plays COD is typically more violet than others. Violent in a sense that they are willing to pick fights with people over pride and such..I played some FPSs early on and it hasent affected me horribly, but its really the other gamers people are exposed to. Tell me, when you were 8, was unreal your primary past time? thats whats happening to kids now, cant wait to get home from school and COD it up. Every day.

The lazy "parents" are to blame, not the developers. End of story.

What game is the one on the cover of this article on the main page of Techspot? The one with Unreal engine and a mini-gun?