Does violence in video games influence the actions of those who play them? (1 Viewer)

[Nezumiiro]

This debate always sparked my curiosity. I personally believe that violent video games do not cause people to act out violently, though there are arguments that they do.

It's my belief that there are ratings for a reason, and that the parents should regulate what they buy for their children (as children aren't allowed to buy rated M games and such, and the only way they can obtain them is that their parents buy them). Also, if you think that you can go out and shoot people because Grand Theft Auto says you can, you obviously have some previous psychological disorder, therefore the violence in the game isn't solely at fault.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

I admit I have an ulterior motive for asking this (besides my interest in the topic)... I have this HUGE project in philosophy class involving this debate. My curiosity overpowers my need for statistics, but nonetheless, I hope it's okay that I use the poll statistics here for the project...I'm not entirely sure. Let me know if I shouldn't.

To put a spin on things, here are some situations that might make you reconsider your opinion:


(consider this situation if you think that video games do not influence actions)
In 2005, an 18-year old from Alabama was featured on the show, 60 Minutes, when he allegedly killed three police officers according to one of the most popular, best-selling games of its time: Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. The officers arrested him for, of all things, a suspicion of grand theft auto—stealing a car. There was a particular “mission” or “objective” in the game that described exactly what he did to kill the officers, which depicted killing the officers after raiding the police station. According to this circumstance, can you conclude that video games do, in fact, cause or influence violence in the people that play them?

(consider this situation if you think that video games do influence actions)
In 2005, a company known as Take-Two Interactive, in which the creators of the Grand Theft Auto video games originated, created an entirely new concept for a game called Stacker. In this game, one would continuously stack plain cardboard boxes over and over again repetitively.The game was oversimplified in order to avoid any adult or violent themes whatsoever, going as far as setting no goals to stacking the boxes, no limited time, no health bar, and standard, simple graphics. It is in first-person, therefore players don’t have the chance to “identify” with the main character in any way. There is no storyline and no plot. It is said that if one plays this game, they will have no sudden urge to just go out and stack boxes as seen in the game. Though this game was originally intended to please parents of children who dislike any form of violence in video games, this has been used in the argument that video games do not cause one to act out what they play. Is this any different than if one were to play a game such as Grand Theft Auto?

Thoughts?

 

[Southern Belle]

No, or at least they aren't supposed to. I was born a gamer, I've been gaming since I was 2 years old on the Atari, I played MK when I was 6 before ratings even existed, and I'm not violent at all. My parents made sure I knew the difference between fantasy and reality and right and wrong. The parents have GOT to do their job. I'm 22 now and I have no desire to play M-rated games because I was raised right. But if I wanted to play them (I think MK is rated M now) I very well could handle it!

 

[talloulou]

Do I believe video games will turn a sane kid into a serial killer? Absolutely not. However video games have many adverse effects. They're very addictive for some kids and all that time playing isn't good for their physical health. They also get very wound up and focus so intently that they tune out the rest of the world and nothing else is as important. It's very hard to talk to my son if he's playing a video game and I know I'm the same way when I'm playing. I also know from my own experience that the game lingers even after it's turned off. I have played many games that I've dreamed about or that I can still see the screen or here the noise after I've unplugged. I think it's even harder for young kids. I know my 7 year old son will play mortal combat and after he's done playing he'll walk around doing pretend kicks and karate moves, ect... Now he's not going to go out and actually be violent but he's hyped up so to speak.

Basically I would never let my kid have video games in their room where I couldn't monitor the time spent and I try to monitor what they play. I don't mind my son playing games that are sort of violent as long as the violence is "characters, superheroes, monsters, ect." I wouldn't let him play a game like grand theft auto where it's people on people so to speak. I've played the game and have amused myself while driving thinking thoughts like "that be a good car to steal!" But I'm an adult and it's just amusing. I don't believe the game could turn a "rational" "sane" adult bad. But children are still developing so I try to be careful about what images I'm exposing them to but I still believe the greater impact comes from the child being socially withdrawn, physically inactive while addicted to a game vs the danger of turning out sociopaths.

 

[BodiSatva]

They do not. Just like owning a gun does not make one a killer.
IT is the person that ultimately has responsibility for their actions.

I watched the Coyote trying to blow up the RoadRunner and not once have I ever dropped a weight on a persons head or tried to blow a person up with fireworks. I also played Counter Strike and lots of other violent video games in my day. I can't stand violence and would never beat a person up, except verbally on this site, unless an innocent was about to be hurt or something. Who kills but killers.

Violent video games hurt children less than todays detached parenting style that leaves kids alienated and chaotic by depriving them of recognizable structure and a lack of consistency.

An insane person, like the kid who shot three cops, is just simply insane...

 

[Light]

I voted yes, because everything in your life influences you in some way.

i am definitely not saying that videogames are RESPONSIBLE for any actions committed by people.

 

[Adrian]

I can't remember: what was that video game that Hitler was always playing as a kid?

 

[Hatuey]

I can't remember: what was that video game that Hitler was always playing as a kid?

Grand Theft Auto : Jerusalem

He started all his bs cause he couldnt beat the last boss. A giant rabbi throwing giant matzo balls at you.

 

[Adrian]

Grand Theft Auto : Jerusalem

He started all his bs cause he couldnt beat the last boss. A giant rabbi throwing giant matzo balls at you.

:rofl

Thank you for that. That was positively the last response on Earth I was expecting.

 

[SpooK]

Re: Does violence i games influence the acn videotions of those who play them?

:rofl

Thank you for that. That was positively the last response on Earth I was expecting.

I take it you havent played the game yet? It's pretty entertaining.



I dont think violent video games influence children to commit acts of violence. Of course I can think of countless times my little brothers were playing something and got hyped up or wanted to wrestle a little bit....... but there is a big difference between that and trying to go out and murder someone with a fatality.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This debate always sparked my curiosity. I personally believe that violent video games do not cause people to act out violently, though there are arguments that they do.

It's my belief that there are ratings for a reason, and that the parents should regulate what they buy for their children (as children aren't allowed to buy rated M games and such, and the only way they can obtain them is that their parents buy them). Also, if you think that you can go out and shoot people because Grand Theft Auto says you can, you obviously have some previous psychological disorder, therefore the violence in the game isn't solely at fault.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

I admit I have an ulterior motive for asking this (besides my interest in the topic)... I have this HUGE project in philosophy class involving this debate. My curiosity overpowers my need for statistics, but nonetheless, I hope it's okay that I use the poll statistics here for the project...I'm not entirely sure. Let me know if I shouldn't.

To put a spin on things, here are some situations that might make you reconsider your opinion:


(consider this situation if you think that video games do not influence actions)
In 2005, an 18-year old from Alabama was featured on the show, 60 Minutes, when he allegedly killed three police officers according to one of the most popular, best-selling games of its time: Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. The officers arrested him for, of all things, a suspicion of grand theft auto—stealing a car. There was a particular “mission” or “objective” in the game that described exactly what he did to kill the officers, which depicted killing the officers after raiding the police station. According to this circumstance, can you conclude that video games do, in fact, cause or influence violence in the people that play them?

(consider this situation if you think that video games do influence actions)
In 2005, a company known as Take-Two Interactive, in which the creators of the Grand Theft Auto video games originated, created an entirely new concept for a game called Stacker. In this game, one would continuously stack plain cardboard boxes over and over again repetitively.The game was oversimplified in order to avoid any adult or violent themes whatsoever, going as far as setting no goals to stacking the boxes, no limited time, no health bar, and standard, simple graphics. It is in first-person, therefore players don’t have the chance to “identify” with the main character in any way. There is no storyline and no plot. It is said that if one plays this game, they will have no sudden urge to just go out and stack boxes as seen in the game. Though this game was originally intended to please parents of children who dislike any form of violence in video games, this has been used in the argument that video games do not cause one to act out what they play. Is this any different than if one were to play a game such as Grand Theft Auto?

Thoughts?

An interesting debate. Since I work with teenagers, the highest percentage of those who play these games and could be influenced by them, I think a good starting point for your debate is to define the term 'influence'. Will it create behaviors that don't already exist? Enhance behaviors that are already there?

Ultimately Bodi answered this question well, and echoes my own sentiments. Anything can influence one's behavior, but the influence degree depends on prior stability/instability of the person. The game does not cause the behaviors; it can influence them if the person is predisposed towards violence, but other things, too, can influence the behaviors. Personal responsibility is key, and the influence of a game is no substitute for that.

 

[Haggwarr]

I voted yes, because everything in your life influences you in some way.

i am definitely not saying that videogames are RESPONSIBLE for any actions committed by people.

I voted yes myself, I think that the gaming CAN be one of the main factors for some kids violent, but of course there's many things that influence. Like Light said.

I have seen it myself outside various of internet cafés during night time etc. Kids not older than 11-13 have been standing fighting eachother *maybe for fun but I don't see the fun in it*

 

[Kandahar]

I voted yes myself, I think that the gaming CAN be one of the main factors for some kids violent, but of course there's many things that influence. Like Light said.

I have seen it myself outside various of internet cafés during night time etc. Kids not older than 11-13 have been standing fighting eachother *maybe for fun but I don't see the fun in it*

11-13 year olds fighting each other is hardly some shocking new trend that has only happened since the invention of video games. Seems normal to me.

 

[Nezumiiro]

:rofl at the GTA: Jerusalem comment...

Anyway, I probably should have made it a little clearer.

An interesting debate. Since I work with teenagers, the highest percentage of those who play these games and could be influenced by them, I think a good starting point for your debate is to define the term 'influence'. Will it create behaviors that don't already exist? Enhance behaviors that are already there?

Ultimately Bodi answered this question well, and echoes my own sentiments. Anything can influence one's behavior, but the influence degree depends on prior stability/instability of the person. The game does not cause the behaviors; it can influence them if the person is predisposed towards violence, but other things, too, can influence the behaviors. Personal responsibility is key, and the influence of a game is no substitute for that.

I see your point--it depends on the definition of influence. I meant to say something along the lines of whether or not the video games cause the predisposition to violence...as in, turn a normal kid into someone who is susceptible to turning violent because of what they saw in a video game. But you make a good point about that in your comment anyway.

 

[Light]

:rofl at the GTA: Jerusalem comment...

Anyway, I probably should have made it a little clearer.



I see your point--it depends on the definition of influence. I meant to say something along the lines of whether or not the video games cause the predisposition to violence...as in, turn a normal kid into someone who is susceptible to turning violent because of what they saw in a video game. But you make a good point about that in your comment anyway.

yeah, perhaps if you phrased it as predisposition, or responsible for violence, but i dont see how video games can do that. I am not really fond of FPS, except old school golden eye, but when i was younger playing golden eye, i never felt the urge to go and buy an AR33 assult rifle (like i could have) and killed someone. Like now, i play mostly hackum slashum games, and though i have developed an interest in martial arts, i have no inclination to go out and gut someone with a pair of chakrums. not even like osama or dubya.

Then again, people argue that because im a girl, im already predisposed to pacivity, but i dont really believe that. :roll:

 

[rathi]

Ever play hockey or football? Video games can't touch either of those sports in terms of violence. Unless the morons start with violent sports they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

:rofl at the GTA: Jerusalem comment...

Anyway, I probably should have made it a little clearer.



I see your point--it depends on the definition of influence. I meant to say something along the lines of whether or not the video games cause the predisposition to violence...as in, turn a normal kid into someone who is susceptible to turning violent because of what they saw in a video game. But you make a good point about that in your comment anyway.

If you're talking about a normal kid with no predispostion for violence than I'd have to say no. It's similar towards blaming heavy metal or punk music for youth violence. Those that become violent are often part of a group that already uses these behaviors, yet uses the music as their anthem. There's a correlation but no causation. Another phiolsphical logical fallacy that this equates to is the Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy, which tries to show that just because A comes before B, A causes B. No evidence for this.

Consider this. In 1994, I was working in an inpatient adolescent psychiatric hospital. Kurt Cobain committed suicide. That week, we received 10 new admissions of teens that attempted suicide because of Cobain's act. Each and every one of them had a history of previous depression. Not one admission had never been depressed. Sure, a small sample size, but it accentuates the poin that I am trying to make. In the vast majority of instances, a violent or othewise extreme act has several progressing and contributing factors, not just one.