Topic: Violence in Video Games

I think there may be a problem in how young the market for violence is skewing and the lack of enforcement of the ESRB/PEGI rating.

Not relating to video games, but there was a study recently about how PG-13 films are now more violent than R rated films in terms of gun violence. It makes sense when you think of it too. The most popular movies these days all feature loads and loads of gun violence. None of it is particularly graphic, but it's there. These are products designed to be consumed by an impressionable audience.

A major problem in America though is just how little parents care and pay attention to what their children are playing or watching. Simulated violence isn't particularly harmful to children as long as their parents have taught them that there's a difference between video games and real life. Mental health is also a major factor being ignored. Whenever something tragic like a school shooting happens, video games are always the big media scapegoat, but few people in charge ever ask damning questions about parenting or mental health. It's just easier to blame a video game and have a big talk about gun control that ends in nothing.

I love asking these questions on game forums because you get such an intelligent conversation.

I don't understand anyone who says ESRB is too strict on Sex considering the Sims and some of JRPGs that get rated T. I see a good number of T rated JRPGs get a reviewer to talk about being uncomfortable with how off color and perverted it is at times than a lot of M rated games get talked about with a similar rating regarding sexuality. They definitely aren't too strict on violence either.
I also see a lot of things online that are false assumptions about the ESRB, they blame things that aren't even taken into consideration or some T games clearly have.

The difference is sex shouldn't be an issue in anything. (I draw the line at stuff like Rape Simulators).

Violence on the other hand might be for the really young.

I'll just add my two cents. I can't explain my exact ideas well right now, so I'll just ask a few questions. Do games encourage a certain mindset from the player? Games tend to employ a reward mechanic, what is the reward given to a player in a violent video game? Being able to distinguish fantasy from reality is definitely a key to preventing people from becoming violent from video games, but when games try to make themselves real to the player, just how much can one make the distinction?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm going to assume so and say "this".

So I'm actually being serious. You hear this topic brought up in the news so much, that the conversation between Fox and Gamers is just agonizingly stupid.

Well to be fair, before VG ratings games were mostly 2D and sprite-based. The graphical detail for a game like that now would be far different from one then. I never said I was against younger players playing M-rated games though, just that many parents don't give them the same level of attention as movies or television. They just don't take the time to understand the medium their kids are watching, then if/when something goes wrong they get upset and blame video games.

Sadly, the only time people pay much attention to it is when they're in the headlines and suddenly they cause violence and other negative behavior.

Was actually supporting your statement

Oh. Whoops, I was going by the part you quoted so I ended up reading it as a counter-argument.

The violence is the reward. Mortal Kombat Fatalities are the perfect example of that.

Mortal Kombat's more of an extreme example, and it's arguable that the violence portrayed is rewarding simply because it's as over the top and unrealistic as possible. Last I checked, a person can't rip a person's still-beating heart out of their chest. There's kind of a rib cage to prevent that. It's so violent that it's silly, which separates it from true violence.

Most people can make that kind of distinction. However, the recent stabbing of a 12 yr old by her friends so they could meet Slenderman says that some people are receptive to some media that is clearly fictional.

Let's look at the Original Goldeneye for the N64. Did you ever shoot an enemy in the butt or the groin? It was hysterical. That was in essence a reward mechanism. In Perfect Dark on the N64 shooting someone in the head next to a wall left a blood splatter. The gore is the reward for your effort. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 has the Kill Cam. Seeing the results of the brutality you are able to cause is the reward in violent video games. It's not all for realism.

Violence is necessary in some games, sometimes it's part of the story or message behind the game. There's really no need to avoid violence in games, or shun it or anything. All you have to do is make sure you yourself are mentally stable enough to handle violence in video games. It only becomes a problem when people can't handle it or are easily influenced by it. In which case, don't play the game. For the latter, maybe don't play video games at all if something virtual can influence your physical reality.

^{(Retro City Rampage had some commentary on this subject in it, I just remembered. That was one of my favorite things in the game!)}

This is exactly what I was talking about with parenting though. If a 12 year old doesn't understand that people die and are gone forever when you stab them, mom and dad seriously dropped the ball. It's pretty obvious that that kid was raised by TV and video games. It's not the media's fault. It's not a video game's fault.

It's really a shame how many things in this world should nowadays only be accessible after a full mental evaluation.

I've got views on both sides of this debate. First of all, I think it's ridiculous how acceptable violence has become in pretty much every form of entertainment. Most issues that have negative effects on real people's lives are treated very respectfully in the media. You just need to hear the word 'cancer' to know what I mean. Well violence ruins people's lives too and is often completely avoidable.

This bizarre double standard has been brought home to me quite often on game review sites. One example was a review of Assassin's Creed 4. The reviewer went out of his way to warn players that there was some very controversial whale hunting in the game. I felt compelled to leave a fairly cheeky comment questioning why he didn't think the 24 (I counted) human deaths in the video were also controversial. Another example was when various reviewers were pointing out that there weren't very good female portrayals in GTA5. A game where the main activity is mass murder. A bizarre double standard to want gender portrayals to match your moral standards while you're gunning down thousands of innocent people.

Now onto the other side of things. I just don't think games lead to violence at all. 2 main reasons:
1) Basic introspection. I can play the most violent games in the world and it doesn't make me remotely aggressive. If anything, it calms me down. It's good escapism. This trend seems to be true in every other gamer I know as well. None of whom have ever committed violent crimes.
2) The violent crime rates in the US have dropped hugely in the last 20 years (yes, the same 20 years which contained nearly all of video game history). These figures are available at a number of sources (http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/09/18/violence-video-games-a-weak-meaningless-correlation/) and are pretty much agreed on by everyone who isn't trying to make you join a religion. So what does this prove? Well nothing for sure. But it's pretty strong evidence that any causal link between games and violence is either non-existent or so weak that it might as well be. In light of this data, which I encourage you to double-check if you doubt it, studies that report people are a bit aggressive after playing games clearly don't carry any weight in any way that matters.

@Dezzy the thing to remember here is that correlation does not equate causation — though I don't think you were implying it, but the statement could be taken as video games have caused the decrease... I think more it proves that video games could not have caused an increase in violent crimes because violent crimes have been decreasing during the same time frame as video games have existed... which is a very strong argument.

Yes, it's the latter point I was making. I don't think anyone would suggest that games could cause the decrease in violence. Or maybe they could (kids more likely to be inside or something along those lines). But I wouldn't take it that seriously. I think it's more likely down to other social factors.