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 readers 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 todays 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 childrens 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 childs 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 Kalnings article is enough to convince one into thinking that video game violence is a serious matter and can have negative psychological effects on a childs brain. She also states Whats 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 readers emotion, and to further feed the readers 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 childs 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 arent 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 its everywhere anyway. Isnt the violence bad in video games? Well, yes - but for some reason we dont worry much about violence in books. So what if theres a bloodbath in King Lear? Or boys kill boys in Lord of the Flies? Theyre 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 isnt 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 ones 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.