I’m posting an essay I wrote for english. I actually have another essay due tomorrow which I’ve done nothing on, and it’s already 10 o’clock. Whee!
What is the Effect of Violence in Video Games?
Heads being blasted apart by sawed-off shotguns with the accompanying blood flying all over the place is just another scene in many video games. Critics of violence in video games claim that these video games cause kids and adults to become desensitized to violence and their nature to be more aggressive and violent. They even go so far as to say that a video game caused the Columbine school shooting in 1999. If this were true, the widespread influence of video games with violence can and will cause many more deaths in the future. However, there are also those who defend video games, stating that people know video games do not represent reality and thus would not imitate what is happening. Despite their rising realism, evidence points to video games not causing violence and have been shown to be helpful rather than detrimental.
No substantial correlation between video games and violence has ever been demonstrated in a laboratory or real life setting. In “Virtual Violence and Real Aggressiveness; Is There a Correlation?” by Marc Saltzman, it quotes a figure offered by the FBI’s Unified Crime Report that says, “violent crime has decreased by almost 20 percent between 1991-97, and juvenile violence is down 40 percent from 1993-1997 just as video games sales became the fastest-growing segment of the American entertainment industry” (1). Clearly, if video games were causing violence, there would be an increase in juvenile violence. An increasing number of kids would have been adversely affected by an increasing amount of video games available. These kids would have contributed to an increase in violent crimes, if there were a link. Video games cannot be causing any rise in violent behavior because there is no rise in violent behavior. Additionally, violence is not dependent on a game, because “video games and computers are not inherently positive or negative; like all technology, they are neutral. Their effects depend on how they are used” (Saltzman 2). Video games cannot be inherently evil, as are things such as genocide. They do not cause violence, only the people playing them can. Any normal person can distinguish between real violence and video game violence and their subsequent consequences. Violent tendencies are in the mind before the video games are played; video games do not teach violence.
Video games can serve as a tool for education, not violence. An article titled “Center’s Study Shows Video Games Can Be Beneficial” by Edward Chiao cites that “avid computer gamers showed higher levels of visual attention and spatial representation than non-gamers — skills necessary in today’s science and technology world” (1). In only focusing on violence within video games, the opposition fails to see the inherent benefits. Evidence between video games and learning has been readily linked, while the link with violent behavior is still insubstantial. Video games have been shown to have more good than bad. This applies to all games, not just games that are considered “educational.” Moreover, Kurt Squire in “Cultural Framing of computer/Video Games” cites another study where, “[i]n 1985, Mitchell gave Atari 2600 consoles to twenty families and found that most families used the game systems as a shared play activity. Instead of leading to poor school performance, increased family violence, or strained family interactions, video games were a positive force on family interactions” (2-3). This information touts video games while also disproving violent behavior as a result in video games. More studies could show even more convincingly how video games can help all members of families, which would further prove the benefit of video games. Again, there was no special emphasis on the games being deemed “educational;” the system itself helped families. The article also goes on to say: “[D]rawing analogies between symbolic representations in the game and their real-life analogs is one of active interpretation, and suggests that students might benefit from systematic explanations or presentations of information. In similar research in anchored instruction and problem-based learning environments, John Bransford and colleagues have found that students perform best when given access to lectures in the context of completing open-ended complex problem solving tasks” (Squire 5-6). Those who oppose violence in video games completely disregard the fact that video games can be used to teach kids how violence is wrong. Game players drawing analogies between real life and video games know that what happens in the video games is fantasy and would know not to do that in real life. Energy used for criticizing video games because of their violence, which is not even related to real-life violence, would be better used by providing resources to help use video games as a learning tool. Indeed, children occupied with games and education will be less likely to commit a crime.
Violence is becoming increasingly realistic in video games, but this, and other arguments put forth by the opposition, still fails to establish a clear causal correlation between the two. Researchers asked college students to play either Wolfenstein 3D, a violent game, or Myst, a non-violent game, then were told to punish opponents with noise blasts, and the researches found that “those who had played the violent game tended to use longer noise bursts” (Saltzman 1). However, this statement is unshakably refuted by the fact that the difference in bursts was .16 seconds (Squire 2). Certainly, a difference of a mere .16 seconds does not constitute a substantial augmentation in aggressive behavior. The difference is so small that it could even go the other way if the experiment were repeated again with more people. Eugene F. Provenzo Jr., in his article “Violence in Video Games is a Serious Problem,” states, “[G]ames that employ a first-person shooter model represent a significant step beyond the tiny cartoon figures that were included in Mortal Kombat in the mid-1990s. In fact, there has been a continuous evolution of the realism of these games as computing power has increased and become cheaper” (3). It is irrefutable that the violence in video games is becoming more real. Yet, since there is not causal link, the level of violence in video games is irrelevant. The principle of realism is not only applied to violence, but to other aspects of the game, such as more intelligent reactions by enemies. Increasing realism is a technique employed to make a game more fun. Dave Grossman, with his article “Violent Video Games Teach Children to Enjoy Killing,” makes an argument that “individuals that law enforcement agents face are ever-more trained, ever-better qualified, and they are concerned that children have their own private police-quality firearms training sitting in the arcade and they are able to play it” (3). Saying that video games produce better-qualified criminals is akin to saying racing video games can produce great NASCAR drivers. Furthermore, video game systems come packaged with controllers, not guns, and computers come with keyboards and mice. The objects commonly used to manipulate video games significantly differ too much from guns to possibly provide any increased gun-handling ability. Games and real life are completely different. Even if games were to help, those using video games as training tools would have figured this out beforehand, thus still invalidating the premise that it is the video games which cause violent behavior.
Evidence for correlations between violent behavior and video games have failed to show up, while evidence for correlations between learning and video games have shown up. Video games do contain violence. Yet, it cannot cause such a thing as a school shooting because there is no causal relationship. In fact, violence has gone down in recent years. There are those who are trying to say video games are wrong, but they themselves must be shown to be wrong. Otherwise, the benefits of video games, such as education, will never be fully realized. No half-truths, such as in the aforementioned study involving punishment times between different games, can ever disprove that video games do not cause violence.
Works Cited
Chiao, Edward. “Center’s Study Shows Video Games Can Be Beneficial.” South End 19 Mar. 2003. 22 May 2003 .
Grossman, Dave. “Violent Video Games Teach Children to Enjoy Killing.” Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Databases. Infotrac. Moreau Catholic High School Lib. 22 May 2003 .
Provenzo, Eugene F., Jr. “Violence in Video Games Is a Serious Problem.” Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Databases. Infotrac. Moreau Catholic High School Lib. 22 May 2003 .
Saltzman, Marc. “Virtual Violence and Real Aggressiveness: Is There Correlation.” Gannett News Service 20 June 2000. SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source. Moreau Catholic High School Lib. 22 May 2003 .
Squire, Kurt. “Cultural Framing of Computer/Video Games.” Game Studies. 22 May 2003 .