Hopefully, the AD staff isn't fundamentally against debating about video games, there was an interesting forum closed recently that came to be about violent video games, I'd like to continue it here if I can.



That is one opinion on the subject, based on a few select studies. However, one study I have read indicates that the way children react to violent video games depends upon whether the game is played individually or with another player.

When violent video games were played individually, the children who played them did become more agressive (I'm not sure how they measured aggression but it was probably a word identification experiment afterward.) However, 2-player games actually decreased aggression in both players measured in the same manner.

Again, this was only one study, and it is not enough to come to any conclusion about the effect of violent video games. Each study seems to disprove the previous, so no evidence either way is conclusive. Which brings us to debate the question:

Do violent video games really teach children to kill? What danger, if any, is posed by violence in video games? What therapeutic effects are there, if any?

No. Video games do not teach kids to kill. Only those who have the type of personality as the Columbine Killers. That is also connected to the danger of video games. Kids who want to kill their teachers are dangerous with these types of games.

As for theraputic, they can help in blowing off steam.

I would have to say that violent video games do teach players to kill. Violent video games are basically electronic instructors that teach how to kill. What is shameful is that there are many violent video games that teach players to like killing. That desensitizes them.

If that's the case, take out the TV in your home, don't let them listen to the radio, read the paper and home school them. Because violence is EVERYWHERE. Honestly, it's apart of human nature and no video game or movie is going to enhance or alter what has been evident throughout man's history: We kill each other. Not saying that it's right or condoning it, but it's just the way it is. If you do the crime, you do the time.

I am sorry, you are mistaken. Violence is not natural. It's learned. Anger is natural, violence is not. Most people don't use violence to resolve disputes.

I guess you've never been around two year olds who hit each other when one steals the others toy! Look in the history books at all the wars throughout time. It's only on rare occasions that conflicts are resolved peacefully. It's only been in the last 100 years that pacifism and diplomacy has really started to be recognized as an alternative solution to conflicts. And even then, it can fail. I'm all for peace and the such, but the reality is, that people are emotional and irrational on a whole and those that aren't are the ones that stand out and make differences or get walked on.

Why do you think that the most violent and graphic video games are always the biggest sellers? Why are movies that portray violence and war are always big blockbusters? They're for people to act out and to escape into what they know they shouldn't and won't do in reality. That's why it's called fantasy.

I agree with you. However, that has little to do with any hypothetical causal link between video games and real life.

I think we need to look a little (well, ok, a lot) deeper to ferret out the roots of our violent societies. Outward violence is an expression and an extension of inner violence; our thoughts are in conflict, because we believe ourselves to be subjects, which seek definition through objects.

I, being an avid game-player for most of my life, feel that I have a little bit of knowledge in this particular arena. Video games, in themselves, do not teach children to be violent any more than movies or comics.

There is always a vague assertion that "Children become lost in the game," or "By participating in the bloodshed, the child feels some sort of bloodlust."

Obviously, video games BY THEMSELVES do not incite bloodlust. Otherwise, we'd get a million brainwashed kids shooting their teachers daily.

Why do violent video games teach players to kill? Why don't they teach players to resolve conflicts in a nonviolent way? Grossman has written we should place a tax on violent video games. What about a tax deduction on nonviolent video games, like give businesses that encourage players to resolve conflicts in nonviolent ways a tax deduction?

The answer is simple, it allows people to act in a fantasy in manners that they would not act like in reality. Do you honestly think there could be a pacific game genre that could rival what is out there now? People play these games for excitment, stress releif, and to lose themselves from reality for awhile. I resolve problems non-violently everyday, why would I want to play a game that does the same.

I do believe that pacifist games could rival and even surpass violent games -- they in fact do. According to Grossman's book, nonviolent media products attract a greater audience than violent media products. Also, violent video games increase a person's heartbeat. So how can they relieve stress when they only add to it? Violent games are destructive, pacifist games are not destructive so they are good at relieving stress.

Could you post a link to some stats supporting your claim?

You make some nice generalizations, but violent video games DO relieve stress for me. And guess what, I'm not a stone cold killer. So am I lying, or can you back up these claims?

I agree! After a long hard day of hearing idiotic customers comlain and my boss riding my back about deadlines, it's a relief to come home and kill some monsters playing Diablo 2. But then I get up the next day and go back to work and NEVER think about going on a shooting rampage. I guess you could call me a mentally and emotionally stable person. Or, you could just call me NORMAL.

Dontreadonme, Grossman's book has stated that nonviolent media products sell better than violent ones do.

I'm not saying you are one, but because of the violent video games you played your mind has become a little more conditioned to accept violence as a means to resolve disputes.

From the following Link:



Of the top ten, I can name two games that are not violent, if you count football as non-violent.

Here's another Link:




I provided links to back up my position, can you do the same?

I provided a book -- Dave Grossman's Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill. I wonder if the links you provided are biased in favor of violent video games. Violent games may have strategy, but nonviolent games can have strategy too. Nonviolent games can also develop hand-eye coordination.

If everyone on this board provided a book to back up their positions, we would have not time for anything else, or even to post on this board.

Um...I wonder if your vaunted book is biased in favor of non-violent games
I posted a couple of different sources, after looking for about two minutes, you have A book.

As a certified personal trainer who continues to work in the fitness industry I might point out that exercise increases a person's heart rate and has been demonstrated by multiple medical studies to relieve stress. An increase in heart rate -- whether from weight training, boxing or video gameplay -- does not inherently signify increased stress levels.


Does anyone know of any video games being marketed as training programs for conflict resolution? It's fiction. It is not intended to convey practical knowledge or advice, but rather to satisfy our fixation on fantasy. Metal Gear Solid no more teaches kids to murder for success than a Disney game about Peter Pan teaches kids to choose pixy dust over Southwest for cheap travel options.

Education allows people to discern between reality and fiction. The danger isn't violent video games or any other form of violence in the media. Perhaps it will influence those without the proper education or faculties to discern between fact and fiction, but the entertainment industry isn't responsible for those citizens separated from reality.

Why is it that whenever I meet a video gamer who's played violent video games or sells them, he/she talks like he/she is desensitized? They talk so hatefully. They don't talk like they're filled with joy, but filled with hate.

Here's links:

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

Please Flute Player, do tell where anything hateful has been said on this thread.
Just because someone disagrees with you, AND provides sources to back up their disagreement, doesn't mean they are desensitized or hateful. There is more than your point of view in this world.
To continue a meaningful debate, can you cite any other source than the Grossman book? If you can project a fair interpretation based on logic, you may get others to see your point.

Nooo, my mind knows the difference between reality and fantasy. On a personal level, I NEVER accept violence as a means to resolve disputes. If my life or a life of a loved one is immediate danger and violence is the last and only means to protect us, I would have no alternative to resort to violence. That is the ONLY condition I would consider violence as an option. Please don't try to psychoanalysis me.



Geez, I don't even know how to respond to this. If you think that average video gamer who plays violent titles is full of hate, you are sadly mistaken. I'm very happy and content and full of love for my fellow mankind.

I'm not referring to anyone here on this thread or any thread on this website for that matter. I'm referring to stores I've been to and other websites I've been to. Please take a look at the links I provided.

FlutePlayer, your first link says nothing about video games. Your second link upon skimming appears to deal with actual experience of violence by children rather than any form of media influence. The third link deals with children and television violence... not video games. Not surprisingly the fourth link deals with television violence and children. Not video games. Perhaps you've read the title of this thread: Violent Video Games.

I'll leave it up to you to tell me whether the last four deal with television or video games as I've already wasted my time with the first half of your provided links. None of them dealt with the possible influences of video games. Beyond that, those you provided dealing with television violence and children are all qualified by saying television "may..." There is nothing conclusive. I would urge you to stick to video games as that is what we are discussing here.

Video game violence and television violence are basically the same thing. Players use television to play video games on. Do you know how video games operate? Video games connect to TVs -- the video game signal travels from the video game console to the TV.

We aren't discussing cartoons or television dramas, FlutePlayer. We are discussing video games. If a game console is connected to a television and operating, cartoons and television dramas are not impacting youth. It is television shows which were being discussed in detail in the links you provide and as such have nothing to do with video games. That a console connects to a television does not make reports about television programs relevant to video gameplay.

A report about the possible influences of NYPD Blue is not the same thing about a report on the possible influences of Grand Theft Auto despite the presence of a television in both.

Video games also are played on computers, what's your point?
I can sit in front of my TV and read a violent book, is that basically the same?

Video games do not offer nor require the same amount of interaction or cognitive thinking that television does. So I would counter that they are indeed not basically the same. You still haven't convinced me that violent video games are any more harmful to people than non violent ones.
After all, society has had violence prone people since they were living in caves and drawing on walls. Video games are just this weeks scapegoat for not taking responsibility for one's own actions.

There are video games that also have cartoons in the programming. I don't think you know what a video game is. A video game basically means a contest that you see with your eyes although it's usually played using your fingers. Some video games, such as Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger have movie pieces in them. Other video games have cartoons in them such as Wing Commander I. If a person watches violence on TV regardless of the source of the violence's signal, he is watching violence on TV. So the links are valid for discussion. Also, does anyone have any ideas as to why there are many violent video game players (not on this website, but on others and in stores) who talk hatefully?

Oh brother. If there were ever a thread on America's Debate that was begging to be closed, it's this one. I've read it twice and I'm STILL confused as to what the point is.

Flute Player, after reading the various replies from AbsLikeJesus, Billy Jean and Dontreadonme I don't know if there's even a question to be debated here. No matter what information that is presented to counter your argument, you merely redouble your efforts to assert your opinion as if it were fact.

Quote: If a person watches violence on TV regardless of the source of the violence's signal, he is watching violence on TV.

This falls under the tactic of False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar. What difference does it matter if you're watching a video game over a Xbox or a GameBoy? It's the content of the material that is important. The medium that is used to convey it is irrelevant.

Quote: Also, does anyone have any ideas as to why there are many violent video game players (not on this website, but on others and in stores) who talk hatefully?

How can anyone answer this question? There are no links to any websites where game players talk "hatefully." There are no examples presented of gamers using "hateful" speech. There is no possible way for others to share your concern and outrage Flute Player when you don't present any supporting evidence that any such problem even exists.

On this board merely stating something as if it were an obvious fact doesn't fly very far here. Most of the posters don't presume facts that are not in evidence. This isn't to say that there are not gamers who play violent video games and their speech reflects exposure to that violence and aggression. However, you have not presented a credible and substantial case to support your argument.

It is just as credible that a person could play Grand Theft Auto: Vice City all morning. Argue with his significant other about who lost the TV remote and club her to death with a chair. Get in the car and pump up the volume on some death metal music. Slam a couple of Big Macs for dinner and wash it down with a six pack of cheap beer and fire up a joint or two to mellow out. Go to the movies and watch Kill Bill and stop off at a 7-11 and shoot the store clerk for $20 and change in the cash register.

What caused the spasm of violence? The video game, stress, the music, the junk food, the alcohol, the drugs, the movie or NONE OF THEM?

Here's my theory as to why some people who play violent video games talk hatefully. They're addicted to violence. Violence comes from hate. Hate is comes from fear and/or intolerance. Violent people who see nonviolent people hate those people because they fear that those nonviolent people will attempt to stop those violent people's violent attitudes and/or violent actions -- they can't tolerate those nonviolent people being nonviolent.

Questions: does anyone here deny that video games can teach people how to kill? Could Super Mario Bros. teach someone how to throw a fireball? Could the Legend of Zelda teach someone how to thrust a sword? Could games that use electronic gun attachments teach someone how to shoot a gun?

This is ridiculous. I've played NBA LIVE 2004, but I can't dunk a basketball over Shaquille O' Neal. I've played TEKKEN fighting games but I still can't execute a perfect somersault and knock my opponent unconscious.

The answers to your questions are no, no, no and no. I don't think a violent video game will teach me how to kill anymore than I think a flight simulation game is going to teach me how to fly.

So you're telling me after playing that game, you can't mimic or attempt to mimic the moves in that game? Why not?

Flute Player, how is your question in any way relevant to the declared topic of this thread?

How do you know for sure that such violent games do not
facilitate violent behavior? They certainly aren't going to
be a positive influence.

I would not allow my children to participate in such activities.

If they need to blow off steam they can do so by riding around
the neighborhood on their bicycles, or going swimming.

Since when is it therapeutic to pretend you are killing someone????

Does anyone have a site that shows all of the video game related murders?

Here, you have presented a causal chain which may or may not be true - and even if it is true, violent video games (you may notice) are not a part of it. Why could your causal chain (if we assume, for a moment, that it is accurate) not explain why people in general talk hatefully? After all, there are plenty of people who "talk hatefully," yet never play any video games at all.

I happen to agree in some part with your chain of causation - fear is a real root issue. What I don't understand is why, after even you seem to admit that the cause is mainly internal (fear/intolerance), you are seeking this specific external cause. It just doesn't make sense. Indeed, constantly seeking an external cause of suffering abridges our ability to make real progress as humans. The source of suffering is within ourselves, and it is there we must seek it.

As for myself, I've watched a lot of comedies; yet my own joke-telling has not improved. I have read and watched many mysteries; and yet I have never gone out and attempted to solve crimes. Finally, I have avidly played (and enjoyed) more than a few violent video games; and yet I espouse and live a pacifism right in line with Mohandas Gandhi.

I think that video games do teach players to kill -- I think that players can mimic what they see on TV -- if they see Mario throwing a fireball they could throw a firecracker, if they see Link throwing/swinging a sword, they could throw a knife/sword. If they play a game like Duck Hunt or Gotcha where they use a gun to shoot at targets on the screen, they learn how to kill by shooting a gun.

Video games may show a person how to kill but the scenarios presented are in most cases unreal, and the characters you play 'as' are super human gun flinging heroes who can beat up anyone. Video games allow people to do the impossible which may not be a good thing but it is all done in a reality of its own and I have seen little evidence to suggest the much seaps through into real life. I have played several violent video games and think that they do make you more violent if your play them on your own but with a mate there just another competitive scenario and all your interested in is watching you friends health points go down. The fact that your pumping bullets into them doesn't even cross your mind! - I don't condone violent video games, and avoid them now, but they are not as influential as some people think.


And anyway violence is a massive part of nature. Has anyone seen a killer whale playing with a baby seal in a nature video, they catch it and drag it out to deeper water where the whale can easily catch it again if it gets away and then it proceeds to fling it repeatedly 50 foot into the air and letting it smash back into the water and it seems to do it just for fun. The seal eventually dies of internal bleeding from having most of its bones torn apart and then the whale takes a little bite and leaves the rest to sink! Many other examples from nature can be shone to be just as violent as our video games.


Have you seen mario throwing fireballs and wanted to drop a firecracker down someones back. Have you seen link throwing knives and wanted to stab someone. have you played Gotcha, shot a target, and wanted to go and really kill someone. I very much doubt it. I think the more violent a video game gets the more desensitised you become to violence in the video game world but no-one I know could take a sword and slice someone in two in real life just becasue they've done it in a game or seen it in a film. It may not be a good idea to portray such violence but it does not have anywhere near as much of an effect as you seem to think it does!

Now, you're making the leap that teaching a person to hit targets with a gun on a video game will increase their violent tendencies.
1)It is GOOD to know how to shoot a gun accurately.
2)Target shooters and expert marksmen are not generally violent people.
3)The art of throwing knives and shooting (real weapons) was much a more popular sport with the general population in the past than it is in the present, yet the crime rate was comparatively low.

Therefore, it is more than a leap to conclude that shooting a computer generated image for targets would result in the sort of violence when shooting the REAL weapons on targets does not.

In Super Mario Bros. 2, Mario can use bombs to blow up enemies. In Zelda II The Adventure of Link, Link throws swords (they do look like knives). I've played Gotcha, but I haven't wanted to go out and kill someone. The thing about these games is that they don't really encourage the killing of people, rather Super Mario Bros. 2 encourages the player to kill Wart's followers, Zelda II encourages the player to kill Ganon's followers, and Gotcha just encourages the player to shoot (not kill) people. Grand Theft Auto 3 and Ethnic Cleansing do encourage people to kill. I think the reason why I don't kill is because I'm so pacified I don't want to kill people. So do you agree that video games can teach people how to kill?

No!!!! Video games do not teach you how to kill. They don't instruct you on how to hold the knife, how to stand correctly for balance and how to properly throw it. They don't show you how to load a gun, hold it properly, line up the sites and squeeze the trigger. They don't show you how to create a bomb or potion correctly. IT'S FANTASY AND ESCAPISM!!!

In Super Mario Bros. 2, it clearly shows Mario lighting the fuse of a bomb. In Zelda II: the Adventure of Link, it clearly shows Link being able to throw a sword. In Gotcha and other gun games, they do teach how to squeeze the trigger of the electronic gun and how to aim.

So Fluteplayer, if I play a space game, then by your logic I should be sending my resume to NASA. Doesn't that sound a little ridiculous to you?

GIVE ME A BREAK!!! This is getting ridiculous Fluteplayer! I mean, are you that adamant on being right that you are throwing common sense out the window? You can see pictures of cartoon bombs in classrooms as part of graphics on assignment sheets and work sheets. ANY intelligent person would conclude that you LIGHT the fuse to set off the bomb! HECk, you can learn that off of LOONEY TOONS!

You're right, some games show you how to line up the sites. But there is SOO much more that goes into using a fire arm than lining up the sites, like the kick and how to adjust for it.

I'm sorry, but your argument is weak and you're evidence is even weaker.

Of course video games cause violence. I mean, just look at back in the day, when there were no video games. The great thing to go do on a warm summer day was to torture a puppy to death. Or tie two cats together by the tails, hang them off of a clothes line and watch them kill each other.

Of course, kids weren't violent until video games came along.

I support freedom of speech. So how about game companies use their freedom of speech to tell players to not be violent and to not be hateful with other people and animals?

Since this has become such a hot topic here at AD, I decided to do some research.

First this:



Now, this is but one example. I have no idea if there are other examples that could be introduced into this debate. But at least in this one case, the children indicate the idea to commit the crime came from the video game.

The article goes on to say:



There are studies available that indicate violent video games lead to aggressive behavior. Here’s excerpts from one:



Then there are studies that indicate video games do not lead to aggressive behavior:


<snip>

<snip>


Testimony is submitted on behalf of the Interactive Digital Software Association
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Video games can be violent. That violence can lead to desensitization of violence. But, simply being desensitized to violence will not lead the player to commit a violent crime or demonstrate violent behavior. If a person were to play a violent video game and then commit a crime that doesn’t mean they are connected. The game didn’t hypnotize or mentally program them to commit the crime.

I don’t buy this at all. If it were true then the incidence of killing and violence would be evenly spread (per capita) wherever theses games are played. Since this is clearly not the case the supposition that the games themselves leads to violence must be incorrect.

I have known a mentally challenged person for almost 3 years now. There is a bunch of technical errata I can shout out but in simple english, half of his brain is missing. Well not missing, but its not there. He suffers from random seizures and hot flashes. Though the reason why he came be who he is today is unknown to me, I would like to make a few simpleton observations.

It just so happens that he plays a large amount of video games. All ranging from Donald Duck racing games to some of the more violent bloodshed games. Over those past three years I have played a fair amount of video games with him, mostly with my free time.

Certain video games can get him pumped up, really excited. I have heard him say some really absurd comments like: "I will blow his head off" or "I am gonna kill this guy, I like his weapon". Now some of you might be thinking that this person is really off the wall and you need to keep an eye on him. But what you don't know is that in my personal opinion that he has a mild case terrets syndrome. Sometimes he can not control what he says when playing video games. See, its not random things he just shouts out, it pertains to the game he is currently playing (most of the time).

Though video games tend to make him more violent mentally, its on a very rare occasion that he is violent physically. Now my estimate on how old he is around maybe 12 mentally. Video games for him is mainly a time filler. But under the hood video games for him personally are a stress relief. Instead of channeling his anger into a wall or someones face, he can simply press a few buttons and channel his pent up anger into the video game.

Now as far as decensitizing people, that it does. But in earlier posts it was mentioned that movies and music can do the same thing, and that it does. See, I am a very big on parental supervison. Movies, music and video games under the correct circumstances can be ok. But it turns to trouble when a kid is left for six hours to play video games, listen to music or watch movies. Small amount of all three are harmless. Another big problem is that parents don't pay attention to the ESRB rating on ALL the video games on the market. If a kid is playing a game market for adult, well you add that up.

ATTEMPT TO BYPASS PROFANITY FILTER REMOVED. -JAIME