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 reader’s emotions. The proponent has a more relaxed approach, seeing the connection as absurd, and they point out flaws in the
but normally with non-consequential activities such as. Researchers examine a case of violence.” by Henry Jenkins.” by Kevin Maney. they feel the need to reach out and protect their children without probable reasoning behind the legitimacy of games causing hostility. The majority of protestors are parents of children who may not have necessarily played 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. Most groups seek to find the smallest bit of evidence to support any ridiculous claim they may have. The idea of mature video games advocating violence comes from the lack of evidence to support a violent act. These types of debates are difficult to completely stop. There is always some type of media to blame for problems in today’s society. football.opponents claims. the articles present are “Video games not necessarily turning kids’ brains to mush. Advocates say that the youth playing these games. “Why Video Games
. The content of each game is deeply examined to specify the age group it is suitable for. but bringing forth proper evidence is the closest any of us can come to picking a side. who is right and who is wrong? One would think to choose the more experienced user. On the non-linked side. Yes. Children say it is no big deal. Parents say it is true. soccer and other sports. 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. But as a parent. This concept is the basis for the release of every video game on the market. So. The opposing articles. children are susceptible to imitate what they enjoy. And “Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked.
“The scans showed a negative effect on the brains of the teens who played ‘Medal of Honor’ for 30 minutes. 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. By citing very scientific and rational evidence to the reader. “Does game violence make teens aggressive?” by Kristin Kalning. both sides present prominent evidence to each argument.or worse. These groups are normally giving out sentences of data based on scientific experimentation through cause and effect. By giving a crystal clear picture of how simply 30 minutes of violent gameplay can affect a child’s brain. Both seem to be compelling and factual enough to be true. the reader begins to wonder what extended weekly gameplay can do. That same effect was not present in the kids who played ‘Need for Speed’ (1). The group that feels video games cause aggression and violence in children are typically focused on numbers and data. rather than experience. one violent. but mainly leaves the reader to decide on his/her own based on the given facts or statistics. Approaching the situation the way she did in that sentence
. simple data such as the data presented in Kalning’s article is enough to convince one into thinking that video game violence is a serious matter and can have negative psychological effects on a child’s brain. And “Does game violence make teens aggressive?” by Kristin Kalning. After reading through all of the articles. She also states “What’s not clear is whether the activity picked up by the MRIs indicates a lingering . permanent effect on the kids brain” (2). and one non-violent and then immediately conduct MRIs on the children’s brains after 30 minutes of game play.” by Amanda Schaffer. one can only question so much. For some. In the article.Really Are Linked To Violence.
The experiment was set up the same as the last.” An experimentation also took place within her article to determine the results of violent video games. and to further feed the reader’s fear. and creates a feeling of consideration for parents. 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. The study found that the students that played the violent games. but instead of conducting MRIs..C. These kinds of statements create over thinking. and analysis of a child’s behavior. And by
. and that Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold loved Doom” (1). It leads to the question . Parents may believe that their child is capable of such horrible acts after he/she is finished playing games. Sending a warning to not only to parents. but to other children who may run into these “aggressive” children in school. induced longer and louder blasts of noise than the students who played the non-violent game.if scientists would not even test for longer than 30 minutes. Schaffer takes the “aggression” approach. “The reports are that shooter Lee Boyd Malvo played the game Halo before his sniper attacks around Washington D. Amanda Schaffer takes a similar approach in her article “ Why video games really are linked to violence. The next writer.questions if it is even worth experimenting for longer periods of time without knowing the full result of violent video game exposure. more physically aggressive’ and less help to others” (1). the students were given the opportunities to attack their opponents with blasts of noise. This is so the reader knows that with proven scientific evidence. She found that “kids who played more violent video games ‘changed over the school year to become more verbally aggressive. Schaffer also mentions a few United States tragedies to appeal to the reader’s emotion. using words that seem frightening. she can be trusted as a writer.
than reading” (1)” This statement is the complete opposite of every statement made in previous articles riding against these video games. “Isn’t the violence bad in video games? Well.but for some reason we don’t worry much about violence in books. showing the reader the situation is not anything to be concerned about. “Video games might be about the best thing your kids can do to ensure their future success. Better. yes . Learning from consequences. Many uses no frightening phrases. but that it’s everywhere anyway. and keeps his audience close. The main goal of the article is to ease the reader. and also learning from the correct choices. to make the reader realize that video games aren’t a horrible thing. He uses the word “success” to further illustrate the positive attitude he has towards gaming. So what if there’s a bloodbath in King Lear? Or boys kill boys in Lord of the Flies? They’re classics!” (2). He brings up valid points in his article. the reader can laugh and at the same time.
. And how playing video games is more of a social idea than a violent one. His goal isn’t too terrify his reader with scientific facts. By using a comedic approach. He mentions that video games require decisions.” Maney. The author states. but with points on how education is strong in these video games. Maney continues to break apart the negative claims games have on kids minds. He mentions that violence is present. even. “Video games not necessarily turning kids’ brains to mush.naming popular games that children play. and that practicing decision making skills can teach a child to become a better person. speaks in a more casual and relaxed tone. On the opposite side of this debate is Kevin Maney. scratch his/her head thinking about correct his statement is. the connection only seems to become clearer to the reader. a technology writer for USA Today.
Henry Jenkins. and denotative. and further discusses that many dangers rumored to be connected with video games. This debate is always one that will have no definitive answer. his writing is very relaxed.Another writer also sides with Maney on video games having no correlation with violence in children. we can be encouraged to examine our own values by seeing how we behave within virtual space” (3). with what is wrong in the real world. The child would have an altered vision of how consequences work in reality as opposed to ones in-game. Leaving a parent to believe that his/her child is fully capable of distinguishing between what is fine in the video game world. are not true. they begin to learn how correct actions can have positive results. Jenkins suggests that by facing tough decisions in-game can reflect how a someone may act in real life. But Jenkins states “Classic studies of play behavior among primates suggest that apes make basic distinctions between play fighting and actual combat” (3).” 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. This contrast shows that if apes can understand a simulated fight. “In the right circumstances. He gets his points across without any confusion. than surely a child can as well. wrote the article “Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked. a professor at MIT. Basing one’s decision on articles similar to the ones presented seems to be the only logical way to pick
. By presenting these decisions to young children. The opponents may argue that a child may make a bad decision within a video game. He sides with parents on that matter. and translate those decisions into the real world. a special self-character test. Much like Maney. Jenkins sees video games as a measurement of values.
a side without playing these games themselves. and cannot be directly linked to violent video games. unless there is some other underlying cause. and playing them is the only real way to tell whether or not this form of entertainment has a negative effect on a child. The video game industry constantly has advances in realism and this controversy will only grow larger. Engaging in the games themselves. Both sides have valid arguments. Becoming frustrated makes one appreciate accomplishing something in a game even more once the frustrating task is finally completed. through scientific study and research. Frustration and aggression will always be present in video games. I believe violence is the factor of many things.
. I do not think a child can turn violent from playing these types of games. and children under 18 should not be allowed to purchase games that are rated mature. I also believe that the rating system remains how it is. but that is what makes these games more fun to play.