Should Video Games be the Blame?

Many people wonder why video games in general, have such a major impact on modern society. It's clear that many people enjoy these games, especially the male demographic, for entertainment purposes. However, some argue that violent video games, especially first-person shooters (FPS), are to blame for the actions depicted in the games, such as killings, affecting both young and old people in modern society. For example, the Call of Duty series and the Grand Theft Auto series are considered the biggest influencers of controversies regarding shootings, crime, and more.

Conversely, others claim that these games don't affect them physically and mentally in any sense, and they simply wish to enjoy them for their personal pleasure. Video games, introduced back in the 1970s with titles such as Pac-Man and Pong, have influenced many people up to the present day. Observing the effects of violent video games, it's clear that individuals, including the government, should consider the consequences of playing these disturbing games, such as massacres, inappropriate sexual behavior, and more. Personally, video games have been a common activity for me since I was six years old, in the year 2000, even though I had no prior knowledge about gaming. I mainly play racing games, as I enjoy real and fictional cars alike. These games have influenced me to be cautious while driving, obeying the traffic rules in real life. However, my first encounter with a Mature-rated (seventeen and up) game at my cousin's old house was quite disturbing. The actions depicted in the game terrified me and made me want to avoid such games!

Consequently, I have come to despise these M-rated games and have stuck to 'E for Everyone' (ages seven and up) to 'T for Teen' (ages thirteen and up) games. In this essay, I'll discuss why violent games can cause significant controversies in real life, such as shootings, sexual crimes, and more. However, some people counter that these games have no impact on them, thinking of them as a fun activity, and that they don't affect them mentally or physically. Firstly, violent games could be considered to blame for mirroring these actions from the game, such as the criminal behavior towards civilians and the government in Grand Theft Auto. Secondly, some people may argue that individuals, not the video games, ought to be blamed for violent actions, like the shooting in Parkland, Florida. The perpetrator, Nickolas Cruz, was an avid player of M-rated shooting video games. According to Howard Cohen of the Miami Herald, a neighbor of Cruz quoted him saying, "It was kill, kill, kill, blow something up and kill some more, all day" (Cohen). In other words, Cruz would spend up to fifteen hours a day pretending to murder people in the game using guns, rifles, and more. Lastly, parents could also be blamed for their children playing these games due to lack of supervision and poor parenting. Despite this, some people disagree, asserting that video games are not harmful to themselves or others, but are instead a fun stress-reliever. To resolve these conflicts, I aim to investigate whether violent video games should be held responsible for causing major controversies among people, making them replicate the actions depicted in the games.

First, many people blame violent video games for their own controversies, especially because they cause many deaths among children and adults. As a result, the government, including President Trump, should act to restrict people from replicating these actions from the actual game, especially through stricter laws regarding M-rated games. For example, the infamous Call of Duty series is known for its violent gameplay involving shooting enemies such as terrorists and Nazis. In addition, it's also controversial to the public because it shows graphic images, racism, and more. For instance, Nikolas Cruz, the shooter in the Stoneman Douglas High School massacre in Parkland, Florida, constantly played violent games like first-person shooters for fifteen hours nonstop. On February 14, 2018, he shot and killed seventeen people, both students and staff, before killing himself. He had become super-possessive as a result of the constant hours of gaming. On arriving at the school, Cruz continued shooting at the unarmed students and staff until the police intervened. What if the government had restricted these violent video games in the first place? Patrick M. Markey and Christopher J. Ferguson, in their book "Teach Us to Fear: The Violent Video Game Moral Panic and the Politics of Game Research," discuss why and how video games and real-world violence can "link" and examine the moral panics that arise as a result.

Both authors explain that "a proposed bill would have changed all that: any retailer who sold an M-rated game (like an R-rated movie) to a minor would have faced fines and community services" (Markey and Ferguson 99). In other words, this bill would have prevented consumers under the age of seventeen from buying these violent games. Both authors argue that "violent video games affect children's behavior, changing it from calm to aggressive...it's like treating it as tobacco, alcohol, and pornography" (Markey and Ferguson 99-100). Craig A. Anderson, the author of "Violent Video Games Cause Aggression," explains that "the exposure to violent video games has been linked to forms of physically violent behavior, as well as other less extreme types of aggression" (Anderson). Specifically, he lists the impacts of video game violence: "increases in aggressive behavior, thinking, and emotions; increases in physiological arousal, and decreases in prosocial behavior" (Anderson). Addiction to these games can cause people stress (both emotional and physical), make them more combative, and lead to health problems such as significant weight gain or loss, avoidance of family members and friends, and negatively affect academic or work performance.

Second, people themselves are to blame for their own actions, not the video games. Greg Toppo of USA Today, in his article "Do Violent Video Games Make Kids Violent? Trump Thinks They Do," states that President Trump "warns about children's exposure to violence in video games, movies, and on the internet" (Toppo). He argues that these kids can be exposed to violent content from various forms of entertainment, especially children eight years and older. Another issue is that people are blamed for their addiction to specific game(s); this addiction is likened to drug and alcohol use, and internet addiction. Tracy Miller of the NY Daily News, in the article "Video Game Addiction and Other Internet Compulsive Disorders Masks Depression, Anxiety, Learning Disabilities," states, "kids are the most vulnerable to video game addiction... and may become violent when their 'drug' is taken away" (Miller). It is true that the "drug" referenced in the article acts as their "lifesaver" from all the stress, until someone—often their parents or siblings—takes it away. As a result, they may become irate and attack their parents to retrieve their game. If children play for more hours than suggested, such as two hours a day, they'll likely continue to play for significantly longer. In other words, it affects their overall behavior, causes social isolation, teaches wrong values, lowers school performance, and damages their health from extended hours of gaming. Miller argues that children may become physically and verbally abusive to themselves and others, whether at home, school, or elsewhere. From the same article, she also states that "it can cause them mental problems, including anxiety, depression, and trouble forming healthy relationships" (Miller). Despite this, video games can be used as a stress-reliever, helping individuals cope with stress from school, work, etc.

Finally, the parents' lack of responsibility may result in blaming their own children for constantly playing violent games. These responsibilities include monitoring their children, limiting their play time, and more. The Missourian Staff of the Northwest Missourian News argues in the article, "Poor Parenting to Blame Instead of Violent Video Games," that most parents aren't responsible for their own children when it comes to playing violent games. For example, the Grand Theft Auto (GTA) series has "stirred up a considerable amount of controversy over the years due to its incredibly violent and profane subject matter" (Missourian Staff). This infamous game is also believed to have contributed to an increase in real-world violence, such as the Stoneman Douglas H.S. shooting discussed in previous paragraphs. Author Henry Jenkins, in his piece "Violent Video Games Do Not Create School Shootings," explains why video games do not cause young people to become school shooters. According to the article, he states that "much video game play is social. Almost sixty percent of frequent gamers play with their friends, thirty-three percent play with their siblings, and twenty-five percent play with their spouses or parents" (Jenkins). He further claims that "the media reformers argue that playing violent video games can cause a lack of empathy for real-world victims" (Jenkins).

In other words, the players may become desensitized to the loss of life in a tragedy, like the aforementioned Parkland, Florida school shooting. Another reason why parents might be to blame is that they often buy M-rated games, which are meant for players aged seventeen and above, for their children aged between seven to sixteen. The same article states that "90 percent of the teenagers' parents don't even check the video game ratings before allowing them to buy games" (Missourian Staff). When buying games, parents often neglect to check the ratings on the back of the box, regardless of their children's age, perhaps unknowingly allowing a twelve-year-old to play Call of Duty, which is age-restricted. The Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) provides ratings (EC for early childhood, E for everyone, E10 for everyone aged ten and up, T for teen, M for mature, and AO for adults only) for video games, helping consumers choose games suitable for particular demographics. The organization's efforts are beneficial as they encourage consumers to choose games appropriately, such as considering Mario games which are generally deemed as family-friendly. Without the ESRB, there could potentially be increased mass shootings and children exhibiting hostile behavior towards their families due to exposure to violent video games. If parents don't regulate their children's exposure to violent video games, the children might become disobedient, aggressive, and addicted.

However, some people assert that violent video games do not affect them whatsoever because they seek enjoyment for their own pleasure. David Kushner, the author of "Violent Video Games Do Not Cause Aggression," claims that "there is no connection between video games and violence whatsoever" (Kushner). Both concepts (video games and violence) do not affect people mentally or physically when they play these games. In other words, they enjoy these games for their pleasure regardless of their violent nature. Conversely, he notes that authors in his article present reasons for the relationship between video gaming and violence. Eric Cain, the author of "Violent Video Games Do Not Cause Violence," presents his arguments about whether these games connect to real-life violence, resulting in various crimes. For instance, a study from the University of Georgia in 1984 suggests that "playing arcade games was linked to increases in physical aggression" (Cain). Despite this, Cain maintains that video games do not provoke aggression in anyone, including children and teens. In contrast, the essay "Personality, Psychopathology, and Developmental Issues in Male Adolescent Video Game Use," published by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, posits that "arcade games have a 'calming effect' and that boys use them to blow off steam" (Cain). In essence, video games serve as a stress reliever for some individuals. Video games should not be initially blamed, as they are intended to be an enjoyable activity rather than a controversial topic related to violence and crime.

In conclusion, violent video games have sparked many controversies, ranging from shootings to crimes and indecency. However, some individuals argue that these games do not harm them mentally, and playing such games can help alleviate stress from work, school, and other areas of life. I advocate the mitigation of aggression induced by these video games for three reasons. Firstly, there is a prevalent argument that violent video games are to blame for many aggressive actions, such as causing harm to children and adults. A second issue is that video games can become addictive and problematic for certain individuals. Finally, some parents neglect their responsibility by permitting their minors to purchase games rated for mature audiences. In my opinion, violent video games pose challenges for various reasons: enforcing the age restrictions on mature-rated games, preventing younger children (between eight and sixteen years) from buying these games, potentially banning the game in specific countries, and monitoring children b while they play. Consequently, it is up to each individual to decide whether to avoid these violent video games or continue to play them based on their personal beliefs and experiences.

Did you like this example?

403

21