Video Game Violence to Real Life Violence

[M.K]

I'm sure this has been a staple between teachers and students, parents and children, politicians and society, but that doesn't mean it is an exhausted topic now does it? DOES Video game violence relate to real life violence?

If you were to ask me about a person of my sanity, I would strongly disagree. On the contrary, I believe that video game violence actually alleviates the urge for kids to commit real life violence. I don't go out on the side of the street jumping on turtles and hijacking automobiles, but I can in video games, which is probably a good thing. Imagination is a terrible thing, but it's also a wonderful thing.

Now, there ARE those people out there that love to go insane on us, and I'm sure that video game violence DOES relate to real life violence for THEM. However, the problem that politicians/teachers/parents don't see is that the number of sane, responsible gamers far, FAR outweighs the number of cruel insane gamers.

So, what do you think? Do you ever feel the urge to get up and commit real life violence? HAVE you been influenced by video games? In a world without video games, how would the crime rate differ than in today's world? What do you think makes someone go out and commit acts of violence?

 

[Teebs]

If I am not mistaken, some of the school shootings that happened around the US were supposedly "video game related," which is possibly true. So for these kinds of situations, when I hear, "This student was playing GTA, Postal, etc." and then decides he wants to turn it into a real life situation, then blaming a video game is possible. But what most people (mainly government) need to figure out is that you can't blame video games for the outbreak. People who play violent, senseless video games should have it in their mind that we can't do this in real life. I play GTA all the time and I don't go out hijacking cars, killing people for fun, etc. It's all in their mind on what they can and cannot do, and it is also the parents fault for letting their child play any such game.

So, there could be controversy on what to blame out of 3 factors, the video game itself, the person who committed said act, or the parents who let their child play said game.

 

[The Executive]

If I am not mistaken, some of the school shootings that happened around the US were supposedly "video game related," which is possibly true. So for these kinds of situations, when I hear, "This student was playing GTA, Postal, etc." and then decides he wants to turn it into a real life situation, then blaming a video game is possible. But what most people (mainly government) need to figure out is that you can't blame video games for the outbreak. People who play violent, senseless video games should have it in their mind that we can't do this in real life. I play GTA all the time and I don't go out hijacking cars, killing people for fun, etc. It's all in their mind on what they can and cannot do, and it is also the parents fault for letting their child play any such game.

So, there could be controversy on what to blame out of 3 factors, the video game itself, the person who committed said act, or the parents who let their child play said game.

Factor 1 is a non-issue. Beyond desensitization, a feat better accomplished by TV and/or the media and/or the internet and already present in nearly every other form of entertainment, violent video games in and of themselves do nothing to instigate violent behaviors. They may, in certain individuals, provide a catalyst for impulses that are already present within the individual, but they do not provide any impulses themselves. If anything, they are an outlet.

 

[Wobbles]

I hate to rehash it, but we're talking basic correlation vs. causation.

People who are more likely to commit violent crimes probably lean towards violent videogames more. If somebody is obsessed with violent videogames--and you can find other indicators of violent tendencies--then you should be concerned. An overwhelming affinity for those games is probably a warning sign that somebody is too into violence.

I highly doubt anybody who is happy and well-balanced will go on a killing spree after playing GTA. People who have problems can find their inspiration to violence anywhere, so we should be more concerned finding them and helping them before we go removing a viable form of entertainment from our homes.

 

[Eriatarka]

I've always thought it was just the media using video games as a scapegoat for violent crimes whenever its possible to make a link between the two. E.g. "The shooter regularly played a violent video-game, lets pin the blame on the game because it makes a good news story." Video games have gotten so much negative press that they've become a soft target.
However, I don't think the arguement can be countered with 'I play GTA and I'm fine'- IF violent video games help trigger violent impulses in an unstable person, enouraging them to act out violent fantasies in real life which they wouldn't have acted out otherwise, video games certainly have a case to answer.

That said, violent films and the internet surely have much more to answer for. I'd imagine films like Saw are much more likely to stimulate violent thought than any game, yet it's always video games that get the blame because its an easier bandwagon to jump on.

There's also the idea that 'games are just for kids, and therefore shouldn't be violent', which needs to be addressed. A lot of people who don't play games don't realise that games are for adults too, there are 18-rated games which shouldn't be viewed by younger gamers. Yet parents don't have any problems buying these games for their children, because they don't care enough to see that '18' is written on the side of the box. I overheard a kid, no older than 13, in a restaurant recently talking to his father about the new GTA. He was telling him how great the last one was, and how he was really looking forward to getting the new one. Dad was all for it. That kind of careless attitude toward the games kids play can't live happily alongside the medias notion that violent games are bad for them.
Parents need to realise that things have changed, not every game is all Yoshis and sunflowers nowadays. Read the ratings.

Anyway, closing point- Even though violent material can't be a positive influence, films don't get chastised for being violent. And neither should games.

 

[The Executive]

I've always thought it was just the media using video games as a scapegoat for violent crimes whenever its possible to make a link between the two. E.g. "The shooter regularly played a violent video-game, lets pin the blame on the game because it makes a good news story." Video games have gotten so much negative press that they've become a soft target.
However, I don't think the arguement can be countered with 'I play GTA and I'm fine'- IF violent video games help trigger violent impulses in an unstable person, enouraging them to act out violent fantasies in real life which they wouldn't have acted out otherwise, video games certainly have a case to answer.

That said, violent films and the internet surely have much more to answer for. I'd imagine films like Saw are much more likely to stimulate violent thought than any game, yet it's always video games that get the blame because its an easier bandwagon to jump on.

There's also the idea that 'games are just for kids, and therefore shouldn't be violent', which needs to be addressed. A lot of people who don't play games don't realise that games are for adults too, there are 18-rated games which shouldn't be viewed by younger gamers. Yet parents don't have any problems buying these games for their children, because they don't care enough to see that '18' is written on the side of the box. I overheard a kid, no older than 13, in a restaurant recently talking to his father about the new GTA. He was telling him how great the last one was, and how he was really looking forward to getting the new one. Dad was all for it. That kind of careless attitude toward the games kids play can't live happily alongside the medias notion that violent games are bad for them.
Parents need to realise that things have changed, not every game is all Yoshis and sunflowers nowadays. Read the ratings.

Anyway, closing point- Even though violent material can't be a positive influence, films don't get chastised for being violent. And neither should games.

Well said. It confuses me that the MPAA's "R" rating is clearly understood by both seller and buyer to be restricted to and meant for persons over the age of 17. However, the ESRB's "M" rating, which carries the same age restriction is dismissed by parents and unenforced by stores. My local GameStop doesn't check IDs on M-rated purchases as I noticed when I waltzed in Sunday to pick up RE4 Wii Edition.

Disparities like this existing means the blame lies not in the content, but the provider.

Question: Is it fine to buy an M-rated game for an underage person if it contains no criminal content and the person has proven themselves mentally mature and competent to distinguish fantasy from reality? I've done this myself, but many people buy games like GTA for their kids without making a judgment call beforehand.

 

[Teebs]

Well said. It confuses me that the MPAA's "R" rating is clearly understood by both seller and buyer to be restricted to and meant for persons over the age of 17. However, the ESRB's "M" rating, which carries the same age restriction is dismissed by parents and unenforced by stores. My local GameStop doesn't check IDs on M-rated purchases as I noticed when I waltzed in Sunday to pick up RE4 Wii Edition.

Disparities like this existing means the blame lies not in the content, but the provider.

Question: Is it fine to buy an M-rated game for an underage person if it contains no criminal content and the person has proven themselves mentally mature and competent to distinguish fantasy from reality? I've done this myself, but many people buy games like GTA for their kids without making a judgment call beforehand.

GameStop had been getting better at checking ID's for under 17 persons. My manager told me when I worked there if he ever caught anyone selling an M rated game to a "minor" in this case, we would be fired, so it's quite strict, including the computer reminded us to ask. So it seems like it all depends on who the manager is.

As for your question, I guess it would be alright, if they were mentally mature enough. I go back with my point though on parents discretion. My friends parents have been easily able to distinguish that, including they bought him GTA III when he was 14 or 15. But then you have to think of the consequences that could occur if you did buy it for the "minor" and the parents found out, that is if they did not approve of M rated games, then you may fall into some deep water with them.

 

[The Executive]

GameStop had been getting better at checking ID's for under 17 persons. My manager told me when I worked there if he ever caught anyone selling an M rated game to a "minor" in this case, we would be fired, so it's quite strict, including the computer reminded us to ask. So it seems like it all depends on who the manager is.

As for your question, I guess it would be alright, if they were mentally mature enough. I go back with my point though on parents discretion. My friends parents have been easily able to distinguish that, including they bought him GTA III when he was 14 or 15. But then you have to think of the consequences that could occur if you did buy it for the "minor" and the parents found out, that is if they did not approve of M rated games, then you may fall into some deep water with them.

The manager at this GameStop is undeserving of their post, so that may have something to do with it. Both local GameStops are poorly run.

 

[yossarian22]

There already have been studies on this. Guess what the results were?
People just like blaming things for their own stupid actions. If playing GTA actually makes you want to beat someone to death, then you have serious issues.

 

[The Executive]

There already have been studies on this. Guess what the results were?
People just like blaming things for their own stupid actions. If playing GTA actually makes you want to beat someone to death, then you have serious issues.

We live in America. The media is above such things as "studies". Proof is unnecessary when you control the flow of information.

/sarcasm

 

[WuTangDude]

You're posting this on a site dedicated to a video game series, I think it's expected most will deny a connection to virtual and real violence. I for one, am no different.

I REALLY think msot people who commit these crimes, i.e Columbine, just blame video games not because it inspired them, but because they messed up BIG TIME and are looking for whatever scapegoats they can pin. If they didn't blame video games, it woulda been rap/metal. If it wasn't rap/metal, it would've been movies. Everyone from Don Imus to kids in school shootings realize that a scapegoat will always make things easier. So I personally believe people who make their connection of crime to a copy of GTA or something is just fabricating stuff in hopes of an easier sentence.

But if that person isn't mentally strong and CAN'T determine what's okay in a video game and what's okay in a real life should without a doubt not be touching games at all. Their guardians should not be letting them touch 'em.

Just my POV on the subject.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

All I want to say is this: If playing a violent video game can make someone commit a crime, then that person would have probably commited the crime anyways.

 

[RBinator]

While this topic is about the relationship of video game violence to real life violence, I think it's also important to talk about M-rated games, since there seems to be a connection.

Personally I think the M-rating is being strictly enforced a bit too much. Its one thing as a guideline and suggestion, but another thing to act like a 16-year-old is going to suffer some serious problems if they played a M-rated game. There are many laws going around trying to get passed to strictly enforce the M-rating, like getting the seller in trouble or in some cases, the child trying to buy the game. I don't remember R rated movies being quite as strict on this, in which that many people are rushing to pass laws or make sure every single person under 17 don't touch it. Again, I thought the rating was only suppose to be a suggestion, informing people of possibly offensive content in a game and for the parent(s) to decide if the game is ok for their children, not the government.

Not all M-rated games are "equally" as bad. I think it's best to look at them on case-by-case basis. Oblivion used to be rated T before being changed to M a little after a month of release for two reasons. The first was near the end of one of the quest lines, it was bloodier then what was originally shown to the ESRB. The second was a mod for the PC version that removed the bras from female characters, using content found off the disc. Anyway, my point is, if a parent was going to buy a child this game while it was T rated, they should find out why it got changed to a M rating rather than "M rated = tons and tons of child ruining content". The first cast is rare, not something that's common throughout the game. The second case, regardless if it's possible with textures off the disc, these mods exist for just about any popular PC game. I wonder how parents who already brought their children the game before the re-rating acted. I know, it could take a little bit of time to find out why a game is rated what it is, but isn't that what being a good parent is about, rather than taking the easy and quick out for parenting?

Just because a parent (like the example of that kid with the talk of getting the next GTA with his dad) buys their under 17 child an M-rated game doesn't automatic mean their being careless. However, from what I seen, this seems to be the exception, not the rule. Many parents seem to buy their child a game thinking games are strictly meant for kids and if their child turns out bad from it, they scapegoat the game, rather than thinking they themselves could be at fault. If a parent believes their child can mentally handle the game, then buying the game for them should be ok right? I remember first playing GTA3 since I was at least 14. I also remember playing games like Mortal Kombat when I was around 6 and Doom not too long after. Had I gone out and hurt or killed someone, I likely would still be in jail and not here typing this reply. What I'm saying is I think it should be case-by-case basis for both the game and the child. Surely there are no laws that prevent a parent with their child from buying an M-rated game right?

GTA is sure a favorite to bring up in these cases. While those games do contain a bunch of stuff that the average person might find offensive, on closer look, GTA doesn't seem that realistic...

• You can break most traffic laws without getting in trouble.
• You can attack or kill a few people and not get reported unless a cop is around, but you get "magically" reported if you do it too many times.
• You can easily stop traffic by walking in front of it and easily hijack someone's vehicle.
• You can get a hold of heavy weaponry like rocket launchers and miniguns.
• It can take many cops to stop you.
• The actions of the people, from mostly acting like jerks and not reporting crimes.
• Other things...

That's not counting video game factors like dying and coming back in perfect health or making the police stop chasing you. My point is, how can even a game that’s supposed to be semi-realistic like this be mistaken for real violence? Who's will play this game and think they can do all of that stuff, or at least so easily? I'm beginning to think GTA is being treated more realistic then what it actually is.

As it has already been said quite a bit, only those who are unstable or were already planning to commit a crime seem to be affected by video game violence and commit a real crime as a result. In the cases where people blamed video games for their crime, they were never over 17, at least from what I seen. There were also usually other warning sights too with those people. People also seem to want to scapegoat games for crimes like school shootings before even know who did it and why. I'm pretty sure with the case of Virginia Tech last year, I seen people blamed video games before they found out the killer never had any video games in his room.

Way too often do I see people talk about keeping M rated games away from those under 17 (or 18 in some cases), but not go into details about the dangers. Like I said earlier, not every person under 17 is too immature to handle an M-rated game. I guess it could be argued that there are people 17 and over who also feel like they can't handle M-rated games, but at least have the option then the automatic viewpoint that's applied to those under 17. It's like anyone under 17 is automatic immature and not worth as much unless they lived a few years longer. Sure it may be easier to act this way, but what about hurting those who are not quite like that, but just didn't yet reach 17 or older?

Anyway, what are the real dangers of people playing games that are suppose to be unsuitable? Do they get grossed out by the violence and not want to see it anymore? How would that lead to wanting to commit a real crime, rather than to avoid the game? Would they get some of the wrong ideas of how to behave from a game? Would they want to smoke and/or drink because of seeing it in a game? I guess that could be a real danger, but not just limited to games or even the media. What about mistaking some of the actions in a game for being realistically possible or acceptable? This seems more like a case of being unstable and not knowing the different between fantasy and reality.

I think we should look more at why someone commits a crime after playing a video game, since I'm pretty sure there are other factors or early warning signs. How can a video game possibly be the sole cause for something like this? I just don't see a person that's stable and respects the law to suddenly turn out to become a killer after playing GTA.

 

[Koskinator]

Well what I think video games are really for is to give us something we can never have. We play video games to experience something that would otherwise be impossible or illegal in real life. If you want to kill people, play Manhunt, if you want to steal cars, play GTA, if you want to beat on Nintendo characters, play Smash Bros. I think video games reduce crime if anything. The only people who are going to go commit these crimes are people who are unsatisfied with the crimes they can commit in these games, and if these people are actually going to commit these crimes, they should be locked up anyway.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

If you think video games inherently cause violence of any kind, you would have to disreguard every single act of violence before and every single decline in crime after November 29, 1972.

 

[The Executive]

I'm surprised no activist groups had kittens over the fact that in GTA:SA you can mow people down with a COMBINE HARVESTER and watch their guts come out the back.

 

[Ørion]

I have read a lot of people say that parents are careless when they buy GTA etc. for their children, but I think it goes beyond this. It's pure apathy. I find it hard to believe that there are very many parents who do not know what kind of stuff is in games like GTA etc., they just do not care that their children are exposed to that. Even if a parent does not look at the rating on the box, surely they would see their child playing it at the house and realize what the game entails? I feel that if any blame should be laid on video games, it should be laid on the parents for allowing their children to be exposed to violence etc.

Now of the issue DOES this actually contribute to real violence? I agree with what many have posted in that it depends on the child. Some are more mature and can handle violence/drugs/sex etc. at a young age, but some cannot. A few children in each generation might very well make a connection that because it's okay in video games, it's okay in real life. This would probably be a huge minority.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned are the benefits video games provide. Especially RPGs can stimulate childrens' imaginations, they improve hand-eye coordination, they can get a competitive edge that can help them later in life, etc. Personally, I feel that the benefits of video games to the masses outways the damage done to the few.

 

[The Executive]

I have read a lot of people say that parents are careless when they buy GTA etc. for their children, but I think it goes beyond this. It's pure apathy. I find it hard to believe that there are very many parents who do not know what kind of stuff is in games like GTA etc., they just do not care that their children are exposed to that. Even if a parent does not look at the rating on the box, surely they would see their child playing it at the house and realize what the game entails? I feel that if any blame should be laid on video games, it should be laid on the parents for allowing their children to be exposed to violence etc.

Now of the issue DOES this actually contribute to real violence? I agree with what many have posted in that it depends on the child. Some are more mature and can handle violence/drugs/sex etc. at a young age, but some cannot. A few children in each generation might very well make a connection that because it's okay in video games, it's okay in real life. This would probably be a huge minority.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned are the benefits video games provide. Especially RPGs can stimulate childrens' imaginations, they improve hand-eye coordination, they can get a competitive edge that can help them later in life, etc. Personally, I feel that the benefits of video games to the masses outways the damage done to the few.

You know what's sad? The odds are negligible that someone from the PTC/PTA/generic parental media will stumble upon this and say "Epiphany! I'm actually responsible for what my child does!". Until then, with the media the way it is, video games will continue to be the scapegoat for bad parenting.

 

[RBinator]

Now that GTA IV has been out for a few days, I'm still waiting for all the media to get in a uproar about how that game will ruin our children, and not focusing on more dangerous things then a video game.

Seriously, how come so many parents these days are so ignorant about video games? They seem to have no problem knowing that ratings exist for movies, but not for video games? They don't think that something must be up with a game named after a crime? Is going online for about 20 minutes to get the facts of a game too much work? This also reminds me of the parents that get angry because children's shows and cartoons don't parent or teach their children to become well behavior members of society. You know, I kinda thought that it was the parents jobs to raise their kids and that the media is mostly entertainment, not an extra parent.

What is it about video games that parents think were designed only for kids? It's not like back in the mid 80's where games released on the NES had strict standards set by Nintendo for what was and wasn't allowed in their games, therefore ensuring that a game would be "kid-friendly". I could never figure it out why many parents don't seem to think that their are not games out there meant for more mature people.

Something else I may have not brought up in my last post is how language is one of the issues that people worry about quite a bit. I think this might fall under being over protected. Parents may not want their children to speak using certain words, but it's another thing to act like those same words don't exist. Chances are, they swear in front of their own children and play the "do as I say, not as I do" card. Also, in public schools or around their friends, wouldn't kids be exposed to words that society has deemed harmful? In other words, isn't it basically impossible to avoid? This could be said about other things like violence as well. My point is, you're not gonna stop children from hearing certain words, but if they speak like that themselves, that's another thing. Either they will choose to or not.

So how is this related to video game violence? Well, when it comes to games like GTA, it's just one of the things they get brought up. I just think what's said on those games is every day language to many of the children that parents want to shield their children from?

How much longer will video games be under fire before they stopped getting treated like the devil? When will we stop having events like Fox New's misguided reaction to Mass Effect, including so-called research that said teenagers can't tell the difference between video games and reality? Will ESRB ratings ever be treated as a guideline for parents rather then government laws?

I would still like to know how the content in games like GTA can mess up teenagers who are not already having other issues, kinda like how I brought up a bit in my last post. I heard too much from people (especially from people who likely themselves played M-rated games before they were at least 17) things like "keep out children away from those games" without detailed reasons that is not the result of poor research. I feel that way about certain other subjects too, but I won't mention them here to avoid going off-topic.

One more thing, if there is truth (besides the vast huge minority that's way below 1%) in M-rated games negatively affecting children to the point of becoming criminals, I think we should be much more focused on what's wrong with the children in the first place. If this research that Fox News claimed to be truth about teenagers not being able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy is truth (which I highly doubt), again, I think there's far bigger problems going on then M-rated games.

 

[Dexter Morgan]

We're actually discussing this in class. And it makes me think of Mr. Jack Thompson when anything like this comes up. Ugh, I hate that guy.

I'm a gamer (as I would assume most people here are) and not everyone can be affected by what games they play. Any social scientist might say there is a connection, since yes, there really is, but it is not the sole factor of everything. For one, education is going to play a part. If you can't seem to see the line between fiction and reality, that skews perceptions. A bunch of other factors come in too, like how your parents care for you, where you live, friends, etc. But taking away violent video games just because they're violent is a bit silly.

I don't see the point of it. I think games are pretty dumbed down in terms of violence when you look at certain movies and so on. They could be worse, to be honest. I think they do have a role, just as everything else in the media does. People learn by television and all that good stuff.

 

[derek.haines]

I'm not going to sit here and deny that there might be a possible correlation, but to simply blame video games for violent behavior is nothing short of scapegoating. Pretty much everyone seems to be hitting the proverbial nail on the head: There is more than one factor that goes into the development of violent behavior. Kids that get obsessed with violence are more likely to play violent video games, I'm sure, but it's not hard to imagine that they probably would've committed violent behavior even if they hadn't played GTA.

In short, anyone suing Rockstar for making their kid rob a convenience store is just looking to make a dollar and pass the blame onto someone else for their own parental failure.