Does Violence In Video Games Encourage Anti-social Behaviour?
![Picture](/uploads/1/8/7/7/18771038/3110963.jpg?574)
Why are video games so fixated on violence? Why is violence an infallible theme in gaming and other mediums of entertainment? The concept of violence in entertainment is to exhilarate, dramatising situations to extremities and therefore provoking a reaction. Often the reaction to violence in it's most gruelling form is negative but either way it is a prospect that we, as human beings, cannot prie our attention from. It shocks us, envigorates our emotions and propels the adrenaline. These reasons alone are the cause of recurring violent themes in the movies we watch, the music we listen to and more recently the games we play. What then is the affect of all this violence we are subscribed to and how does it manipulate our actions in society? The ongoing debate surrounding the affect of violence on young people still echoes to this day. Before video games were brought into the equation it was television that suffered the blame, now it's video games that are falling under the scrutiny.
There have been around 130 studies on violence in video games since their release. 130 000 participants from around the world have been psychologically tested to show that violent games increase violent thought. Craig A. Anderson and Brad J. Bushman, researchers from Iowa State University, developed a system of analysing the affects of violent exposure in video games called the General Aggression Model (GAM). With this they determined that people exposed to excessive aggression in video games were more likely to react and think in an aggressive manner. Moreover playing violent video games causes the formation of aggressive beliefs and attitudes, while also desensitising gamers to violent behaviour. With this evidence in mind it is conceivable that playing violent games can lead to acts of criminality and more drastically inspire the most salient of sins such as murder or robbery. In Leicester, England in 2004, Warren Blanc (a 17 year old boy) murdered his thirteen year old friend, Stefan Pakeerah, with a knife and a hammer. It was later revealed that Warren was "Obsessed" with the video game manhunt and as the attack was representative of the game in question it took much of the blame for the young boys actions. The Daily Mail newspaper covered the headline "Murder by Playstation" and the mother of Stefan was quoted saying "I can't believe that this sort of material is allowed in a society where anarchy is not that far removed". As a result of this the game itself was banned as it was seen to corrupt young minds in a sinister and hazardous fashion. In cases such as this it is evident that video games could be the influence on young minds that lead them to these terrible ends.
Contrary to this hyperbollic and arguably fallacious assumption of causes, no long term effects of playing violent video games have been discovered. Furthermore there are no direct links from the increased aggressive attitudes violent games produce and acting upon them. It's possible that modern audiences deserve a little more credit. Viewers and gamers alike are not entirely predisposed to the media in a way that blurs the line between what is morally acceptable in fantasy and what is acceptable in reality. By subjection to murdering and pillaging on the screen, video game fans don't assume that this passificity towards sin carries over into their every day lives. Conclusively, sophisticated consumers have more intuition than Pavlov's dogs and are not wholly overcome by media influence devoid of moral sentiment. A kid doesn't go around shooting people with a sawn off shotgun after playing an FPS because he believes they will respawn in a few seconds. It is ill founded scaremongering to jab the finger in the chest of video games every time a sociopath butchers his school mates. Most kids in contemporary society play video games as a pastime but the hobby never manages to be attributed to acts of heroism or exceptional behaviour. These ignorant, derogatory pre dispositions of video games seem to fixate on the affects of it's violent distribution on young people as though no other vessel for aggressive behaviour is apparent in their lives. Of course before video games and television were invented everyone just skipped around hugging and offering to wipe each other's arses all day. It's preposterous extremism in regards to something these finger pointers know nothing about, although it's not surprising considering the despicable human nature to fear and consequently hate the unknown.
It could be argued that violence used in the making of video games is a form of artistic expression and more often than not representative of social themes such as war and street gang mentality. Besides the aestetic values of graphic vehemence, the advantages of involving violence in a video game makes the story telling aspect more compelling. It can be used as a method for narration, portray realism and grasp a gamer's attention more vividly than a more passive approach. An example of dureness being used a method for narration can be seen in Silent Hill 2. At one point in the game "Triangle head man", as i fondly remember him, is cramming leg people into a kitchen sink while you look on helplessly from inside a cupboard. Through the slats you can see him twisting limbs in a sex frenzy, trying to fit them all in the sink. Why he wanted those leg people in that sink i'll never know but it's a harrowing image that resonates in my thoughts whenever it's my turn to do the dishes. This inexplicable display of brutality shaped the character of "Triangle Head Man" in an unforgettable way. It taught me at the time that this guy with a triangular head was an evil sadist who took pleasure in the torturing of (whom i could only assume were) his colleagues in the task of halting my progress. With this as my newly attained synopsis for his character, i made it a point to avoid him and possibly use his memory as a scare factor in the disciplining of my future children. If this scene was devoid of erotic masochism and "triangle head man" wasn't forcebly inserting his friends into a kitchen sink, if instead he was just doing a crossword or baking a cake, then the fear it planted in me wouldn't exist and the tension I felt would melt away. In this sense then it can be debated that violence in video games has a purpose. It is used as a tool for character development and tension building.
There have been around 130 studies on violence in video games since their release. 130 000 participants from around the world have been psychologically tested to show that violent games increase violent thought. Craig A. Anderson and Brad J. Bushman, researchers from Iowa State University, developed a system of analysing the affects of violent exposure in video games called the General Aggression Model (GAM). With this they determined that people exposed to excessive aggression in video games were more likely to react and think in an aggressive manner. Moreover playing violent video games causes the formation of aggressive beliefs and attitudes, while also desensitising gamers to violent behaviour. With this evidence in mind it is conceivable that playing violent games can lead to acts of criminality and more drastically inspire the most salient of sins such as murder or robbery. In Leicester, England in 2004, Warren Blanc (a 17 year old boy) murdered his thirteen year old friend, Stefan Pakeerah, with a knife and a hammer. It was later revealed that Warren was "Obsessed" with the video game manhunt and as the attack was representative of the game in question it took much of the blame for the young boys actions. The Daily Mail newspaper covered the headline "Murder by Playstation" and the mother of Stefan was quoted saying "I can't believe that this sort of material is allowed in a society where anarchy is not that far removed". As a result of this the game itself was banned as it was seen to corrupt young minds in a sinister and hazardous fashion. In cases such as this it is evident that video games could be the influence on young minds that lead them to these terrible ends.
Contrary to this hyperbollic and arguably fallacious assumption of causes, no long term effects of playing violent video games have been discovered. Furthermore there are no direct links from the increased aggressive attitudes violent games produce and acting upon them. It's possible that modern audiences deserve a little more credit. Viewers and gamers alike are not entirely predisposed to the media in a way that blurs the line between what is morally acceptable in fantasy and what is acceptable in reality. By subjection to murdering and pillaging on the screen, video game fans don't assume that this passificity towards sin carries over into their every day lives. Conclusively, sophisticated consumers have more intuition than Pavlov's dogs and are not wholly overcome by media influence devoid of moral sentiment. A kid doesn't go around shooting people with a sawn off shotgun after playing an FPS because he believes they will respawn in a few seconds. It is ill founded scaremongering to jab the finger in the chest of video games every time a sociopath butchers his school mates. Most kids in contemporary society play video games as a pastime but the hobby never manages to be attributed to acts of heroism or exceptional behaviour. These ignorant, derogatory pre dispositions of video games seem to fixate on the affects of it's violent distribution on young people as though no other vessel for aggressive behaviour is apparent in their lives. Of course before video games and television were invented everyone just skipped around hugging and offering to wipe each other's arses all day. It's preposterous extremism in regards to something these finger pointers know nothing about, although it's not surprising considering the despicable human nature to fear and consequently hate the unknown.
It could be argued that violence used in the making of video games is a form of artistic expression and more often than not representative of social themes such as war and street gang mentality. Besides the aestetic values of graphic vehemence, the advantages of involving violence in a video game makes the story telling aspect more compelling. It can be used as a method for narration, portray realism and grasp a gamer's attention more vividly than a more passive approach. An example of dureness being used a method for narration can be seen in Silent Hill 2. At one point in the game "Triangle head man", as i fondly remember him, is cramming leg people into a kitchen sink while you look on helplessly from inside a cupboard. Through the slats you can see him twisting limbs in a sex frenzy, trying to fit them all in the sink. Why he wanted those leg people in that sink i'll never know but it's a harrowing image that resonates in my thoughts whenever it's my turn to do the dishes. This inexplicable display of brutality shaped the character of "Triangle Head Man" in an unforgettable way. It taught me at the time that this guy with a triangular head was an evil sadist who took pleasure in the torturing of (whom i could only assume were) his colleagues in the task of halting my progress. With this as my newly attained synopsis for his character, i made it a point to avoid him and possibly use his memory as a scare factor in the disciplining of my future children. If this scene was devoid of erotic masochism and "triangle head man" wasn't forcebly inserting his friends into a kitchen sink, if instead he was just doing a crossword or baking a cake, then the fear it planted in me wouldn't exist and the tension I felt would melt away. In this sense then it can be debated that violence in video games has a purpose. It is used as a tool for character development and tension building.
One of the major issues of violence in video games as a deviation of it's affects stemming from television, is the fact that when playing a game the player is actively involved in the aggression taking place. This is where gaming differs from all other vessels of violence in the media. As a player actively takes on the role of the aggressor the thoughts and feelings of the protagonist are more profoundly channeled. With this in mind it's no surprise that Hitman 2 on the Playstation 2 was recalled and re written as one of the missions imitated the real-life 1984 Golden Temple massacre in Amritsar, where thousands of Sikhs were killed in an attack by Indian troops. The political and religious agenda harboured by this mission irked many religous figures and it was deemed insensitive to have it recreated for the gaming pleasure of the masses. It is supposable that the game's political edge, in relevence to real life events, could inflict the antisocial beliefs and agendas of the character on the people taking on the role. This being said, to see a video game as a projection for political or religous propoganda is short sighted and an underdeveloped accusation in it's entirety. When considering the nature of video games in that the killing of others is rewarded and not punished, the concern regarding the shaping of moral structure is somewhat understandable. In recent video games players earn accheivements and score points when killing other players online. This competative arena of heartless slaughter, where a sense of right and wrong is turned upside down, could have a serious affect on the people actively involved.
Undoubtably the Godfather of gaming controversy is Grand Theft Auto. In GTA: Vice City it is common practice to pick up a hooker, give her the time in a dark alley somewhere and then murder her to get your money back. It defies sense to suggest that this is the best way for a human being to spend their time but are people taking these games too seriously? With an unrelenting view of abjectivity towards video games, people are blinded to the "tongue in cheek" element that most titles employ. To see GTA as a portal through which psychos can express their sinister desires by whatever means is absurd. Video games, as is in any media from, do have the power to influence aggressive thought but they cannot turn a law abiding person into a rampaging murderer. I think a sense of humour is required to understand the violence in video games. Your actions as the player have no bearing on your actions as a human being because you can distinguish the difference. Studies showing that mature video games enhance aggressive thought are not a basis on which to restrict and censor. To try and censor a person's thoughts is borderline dystopian oppression. What a person thinks, be it aggressive or passive, is entirely up to them and we have no right to condemn the media as a figurehead for the promotion of these thoughts. Simply put the attempts to try and shape society by inflicting rules and regulations obstructing the abstract and the violent are ironically the very reason why we play video games as an escape. With everyone trying endlessly to better themselves by denying exposure to the antisocial, we have developed an artistic thirst for the taboo. This excitement we feel when under the glow of violence is present because it is frowned upon. It's a rebellious function to exercise the forbidden without the consequences the action would result in outside of the fictional bracket that we indulge in. Should video games make an attempt to be less violent and should the more violent games be censored? It's a question that i couldn't possibly answer without extreme bias but let us secure in the knowledge the notion that violent exposure, although encouraging in thought and formations of aggressive attitudes, cannot be the direct cause of anti-social pursuits.
Undoubtably the Godfather of gaming controversy is Grand Theft Auto. In GTA: Vice City it is common practice to pick up a hooker, give her the time in a dark alley somewhere and then murder her to get your money back. It defies sense to suggest that this is the best way for a human being to spend their time but are people taking these games too seriously? With an unrelenting view of abjectivity towards video games, people are blinded to the "tongue in cheek" element that most titles employ. To see GTA as a portal through which psychos can express their sinister desires by whatever means is absurd. Video games, as is in any media from, do have the power to influence aggressive thought but they cannot turn a law abiding person into a rampaging murderer. I think a sense of humour is required to understand the violence in video games. Your actions as the player have no bearing on your actions as a human being because you can distinguish the difference. Studies showing that mature video games enhance aggressive thought are not a basis on which to restrict and censor. To try and censor a person's thoughts is borderline dystopian oppression. What a person thinks, be it aggressive or passive, is entirely up to them and we have no right to condemn the media as a figurehead for the promotion of these thoughts. Simply put the attempts to try and shape society by inflicting rules and regulations obstructing the abstract and the violent are ironically the very reason why we play video games as an escape. With everyone trying endlessly to better themselves by denying exposure to the antisocial, we have developed an artistic thirst for the taboo. This excitement we feel when under the glow of violence is present because it is frowned upon. It's a rebellious function to exercise the forbidden without the consequences the action would result in outside of the fictional bracket that we indulge in. Should video games make an attempt to be less violent and should the more violent games be censored? It's a question that i couldn't possibly answer without extreme bias but let us secure in the knowledge the notion that violent exposure, although encouraging in thought and formations of aggressive attitudes, cannot be the direct cause of anti-social pursuits.